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.
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by EnochWasRight
So your assertion that the simulation theory is wrong, is based on quoting verses from the Bible? I'm not seeing the connection. I love how Christians always take a verse or two and then interpret simple/vague text to apply to absolutely... anything.
Actually, my premise was in support of the thread by showing the elements of creation found in scripture. I am constantly amazed how some people are blinded to scripture from bias. I posted the most profound information concerning how our entire universe was created and you cannot see it at all. That amazes me.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont see how the conclusion backs up the theory,,,, when 130 years ago ( or so) and today,, the limits of technology ( like the limits of our senses) give us a hazy view of micro reality? there has to be a difference between the idea of reality being a computer ( which it is) and the concept of simulation ( which would mean/entail?)...
what would what be simulating? are you only implying determinism with the idea of simulation?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by mideast
Originally posted by mideast
cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation
Stick a pin in your hands and you will see it is not.
Or
Maybe some thing more intense will show you it was not.
I can see from quoting that you, Mideast, view this thread to be idiotic...judging by the "stfu" emoticon you used. Allow me to set you straight - politely, of course.
There is probably a code for inducing pain in living creatures - we have methods of electrical stimuli that generate false sensations, chemicals that do the same thing, and this suggests there is indeed a mathematical formula that quanitifes pain.
In fact, everything in the universe can be quantified. Unfortunately, quantification takes the meaning out of everything. Math is the language of the universe, geometry is its poetry, but for beings who use a completely different language, it removes all meaning and beauty. There is something to be said for seeing something with your heart and not your brain.
In the meantime, if you view OP's premise to be ridiculous, prove to me that this reality isn't simply the result of stimulus provided by curious alien scientists prodding our brains as they float in jars.
Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
reply to post by dominicus
That is probably part of the equation.
The more distracted we are, rather it be with war, hate, lust, greed, fear, .........; you name it, the less likely we will find the source code and inevitably the truth.
Some believe we are not ready for the truth and the knowing will destroy us. I think we are too busy destroying ourselves to recognize or accept the truth, which may be right in front of us.
It is way too seductive to believe we are unique, special, better than even one more person in our world.
How disheartening it is for most to believe or accept that we may be no more than a flea on the backside of a giant ass or a genetic mass of complex carbon based material functioning as a cog in the wheel of progressive neural simulation.
Maybe we are just a dream or just dreaming
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont see how the conclusion backs up the theory,,,, when 130 years ago ( or so) and today,, the limits of technology ( like the limits of our senses) give us a hazy view of micro reality? there has to be a difference between the idea of reality being a computer ( which it is) and the concept of simulation ( which would mean/entail?)...
what would what be simulating? are you only implying determinism with the idea of simulation?
The "convenience" of this proposition is that time and technology are irrelevant. If this reality is simply a simulation, the "real" year, outside of the simulation, could be now, a billion years in the past or a billion years in the future. Outside of the simulation, there might be no such thing as time, and it's merely a variable in our simulation.
Because we rely solely on our senses to define reality, if we accept the proposition that everything that we sense can be artificially induced through electrical stimulation of the neurological system, we can no longer claim that reality is NOT a simulation. All that's left to do is to prove that it is, which is what is being claimed.
These are not new ideas, of course -- see The Brain in a Vat Argument, for example. But the notion that we might be able to positively determine whether we exist in a simulation is new.
Originally posted by Wongbeedman
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Originally posted by Raelsatu
reply to post by EnochWasRight
So your assertion that the simulation theory is wrong, is based on quoting verses from the Bible? I'm not seeing the connection. I love how Christians always take a verse or two and then interpret simple/vague text to apply to absolutely... anything.
Actually, my premise was in support of the thread by showing the elements of creation found in scripture. I am constantly amazed how some people are blinded to scripture from bias. I posted the most profound information concerning how our entire universe was created and you cannot see it at all. That amazes me.
I'm sorry but I don't buy it. How are supposed to debate with you when you say stuff like
"I posted the most profound information concerning how our entire universe was created and you cannot see it at all."
I think you need to learn a thing or two about denying ignorance.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
what are you talking about accepting that everything we sense can be artificially induced,,..,.,.,
I must ask you hypothetically...... what in infinity and eternity can potentially be real? besides this universe besides any others that can be or simulations,.... what would it take for something to be real?
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by ImaFungi
what are you talking about accepting that everything we sense can be artificially induced,,..,.,.,
Sight, as an example, is simply electrical signals between your optic nerve and your brain. Your eyeballs gather in a picture, it's converted to electrical impulses, and shunted back to your brain, which reconstructs it as an "image". Scientists are currently working on retinal implants that can restore sight to some blind people by using a camera to collect the picture, and then pipe it back to the brain as it normally would be. (See this article)
With that in mind, pretend that you are a brain in a vat, with an electrical wire connecting on that same passageway, but the source at the other end is neither an eye nor a camera, but rather a computer, which is capable of generating images in real time. How would your brain know that the source of what your brain thinks you are "seeing" is a computer, rather than an eye or camera? It couldn't, assuming that all other senses, like touch or hearing, are simultaneously being simulated by this computer.
That's what I mean -- if all of that was possible (and, the argument goes, it will, by necessity, be possible at some point) how can anyone say that they are not a brain in a vat, or some other existence that is really just a computer generated simulation.
I must ask you hypothetically...... what in infinity and eternity can potentially be real? besides this universe besides any others that can be or simulations,.... what would it take for something to be real?
Under the terms of what I just laid out, nothing. It is entirely possible (and some would say likely,) that nothing that we experience is "real," in the sense that most people apply that term.
Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by ImaFungi
You talk about the size of the universe, its "expansiveness", relative to our perception of it.
I submit to you that what we perceive is predetermined by how our brain is designed to process input. What we "see" is merely impulses interpreted by the brain.
We may all be standing on the head of a pin and have no perception of it. The universe may be no more than the size of a thimble.
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by ImaFungi
Sorry, you're still not getting it. (By the way, what's with all the extra commas in your posts? It's very distracting.)
You can't say "physics shows this or that," because physics is a sensible discipline -- you use your senses to measure things, or read a meter or study a cosmic red shift. If you are a "brain in a vat", anything that you use your senses to determine (and that's everything, apart from intelligible things -- stuff that's just in your mind, like imagination or ideas) can be faked, and so is not a reliable basis for determining reality.
In other words, when contemplating whether we live in a simulation, science is of no help, apart from demonstrating that we do.
Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by ImaFungi
He's right. You DON'T get it.
Originally posted by rtyfx
reply to post by ImaFungi
The answer to that question, how do we establish what is real, is we can't. We have no alternative reality with which to compare our current reality.
For now, the here and now is the standard for real and that itself is in question because of how we process information.