reply to post by DazDaKing
But you agree that if we DO go on to create such a virtual universe, it gives significant leverage for the idea to be a genuine, logical
No, it would make the idea an accomplished fact. It would make us gods.
able to code an existence that IS as self-conscious and self-controlling over itself as we are, rather than an automated process churning
numbers and giving the illusion of self-consciousness
Are we self-controlling? Can you provide clear, unambiguous evidence of this?
Is consciousness anything more than an illusion? Can you provide clear, unambigous evidence of this?
Yes, it would make us Gods, but that wasnt my question. Let me try another way; if we prove ourselves to be capable of creating a virtual universe (we
already have in multiple ways but I assume you want one exactly like the universe until you'll claim its conclusive), wouldn't that put us in a
position where by the nature of logic and probability, we will have to admit we were probably created? Am I right then, in understanding, that the one
thing that seperates you from seeing God as an 'illogical conclusion' as opposed to a 'logical conclusion' is the creation of a virtual universe?
But surely - you must be aware that every and any function of the universe can be modelled and discretised as far as we know, that the speed of light
would be the processing rate required and the Planck length would be the smallest possible time interval. All the gaps can be filled from there, and
as I have concluded that you believe consciousness is programmable, doesn't that mean you should be quite well aware that it is not only a probable
possibility, but practically a fact (unless funding or supercomputing never takes off - but theoretically) that the universe can be created. What is
the theoretical obstacle to this not being possible?
Then, if that is the case and you accept that, why are you waiting for it to be done. If you know it's possible, and video games show to us the level
of progress we have made in creating virtual universes over the past 3 decades, isn't it a bit too extreme to refuse to even accept it as a
possibility until it is in front of you? I'm just trying to gain insight into your thoughts on this. I understand you can simply turn around and say
'but I can't know for certain until it is done', which is of course a valid point, but I feel at the same time you are intelligent enough to
understand it will happen, and has been happening. Femtosecond interval universes have already been made - ironically in attempts to prove our
universe is simulated by showing the link between coded constraints and physical constraints (long to get into that here). Is there an aspect of it
you believe is unrecreatable? Or is it, like I said before, simply a case of wanting to know its possibility through physical evidence rather than the
combination of theoretical knowledge/logic and the future projection of current technology. In that case, you are not much of a philosopher as you are
a taker and accepter of truth? I am surprised there is not a higher overlap of those characteristics in the modern age. I understand the intellectual
safety of only ever going on evidence, but isn't it these types of realistic assumptions that have pushed our knowledge forward, rather than harmed
This is why I had lost my nerve with this conversation before. I felt like a perfectly plausible topic of conversation was completely shut off due to
lack of evidence of us creating a virtual universe, when actual evidence is practically round the corner. Perhaps that is just my opinion, but even
those disinterested should be able to see this happening in the future. If it is comprehendanble by a human - it is usually possible to recreate.
I honestly think we WILL make virtual universes like ours - hence why I do not see this as much of an obstacle as you evidently have (with no due
fault of course - everyone's free to completely base their judgment on nothing but rock-hard evidence).
I shall return to your consciousness question later. It is two good questions you poise, but I'm sure you understand that they cannot be easily
explored or debated through a quick or swift reply.
edit on 3-12-2013 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)