It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# For the sake of the argument, let’s assume we live in a simulation

page: 1
4
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:29 AM
I don’t know if there is a God and I don’t care, I just want you people to understand that trying to prove there is no creator is a waste of time. As lately there has been some fuss about the universe being a simulation let’s use that to set an example.

So let assume:
That a doritos munching fatso wants to run a simulation. To run his simulation he need to set a series of parameters that will rule the simulation, in our case things like gravity elastic and inelastic collisions or physical laws in general.

This parameters will define the simulation and as you are part of the simulation it will define you as well. Now if you want to know if someone created you, you may want to observe your universe to see if you find it in the terms you perceive, so you look at your gravity, your elastic and inelastic collisions or your physical laws in general, so the question arise, could you perceive the creator if he is not define by the same parameters?

In our simulated case we know fatso dint define the simulation using the same parameters that define him (as he is fat because he is a lazy fatso and left things out for pure laziness) and he is clearly not part of the simulation, so in effect the simulation is contained in a box and the creator is outside it (as in any simulation) I’m also fat and lazy so the simulation is defined as Y = X and fatso Y = 1 + X.

If our poor simulated line wants to search for god, it could go its entire universe from - ∞ to ∞ and never intercept with its creator, it may reach the logic conclusion that there is no creator at all, but we know better and can clearly see that in this case line is doom to hell as in fact fatso created it.

In our case we can assume all the universe we perceive is also a box, we can search in all places inside the box and may or may not find a god, but that never rules out the possibility he is outside the box.

In short you cannot know because there is always the possibility you aren’t looking in the right place.
Shorter: YOU CANNOT KNOW

But I am fully aware that I lose my time as it is always a matter of faith, believers have faith there is a god, non-believers have faith there isn’t as there is no proof in any case.

If you don’t believe what I’m saying please don’t rage and have a cookie, if you believe you get no cookie.

Yes i am lazy and "imitated" someone else topic title, Imitation Is the Best Form of Flattery according to some.

Oh and i know that if comments are food for though mine are tofu, i did my best don't bash me

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:36 AM
How can anyone bash someone who puts a huge picture of a cookie in their post?

Can't.

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:36 AM
I guess we just have to have faith that "fatso" is out there somewhere...

s/f for putting it all in...those terms.
edit on 7-1-2014 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:47 AM
Any simulation obtaining 'awareness' of being a simulation defeats the entire purpose of being a simulation since simulations are predictive models of 'real' or projected 'real' events.

Once a simulation becomes 'aware' of being a simulation, it ceases to have any real consequence as an accurate model of anything 'real' because it is suddenly aware of the artificiality of its nature such that it may very well actively rebel against the very point and objective of the simulation to begin with.

Thus, the very fact that we can so readily and easily question whether or not we're in a simulation would seem to indicate that we are not.

edit on 1/7/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:49 AM

the cookie was a trap, i got a cookie in my hand, it real. if someone don't believe in my reasoning they can have the cookie, only that it is out of reach and they have to prove its not real, if you believe me then you know you cannot have the cookie as i stated.

edit on 7-1-2014 by Indigent because: mistake what i wanted to edit...

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:54 AM

AliceBleachWhite

Any simulation obtaining 'awareness' of being a simulation defeats the entire purpose of being a simulation since simulations are predictive models of 'real' or projected 'real' events.

Once a simulation becomes 'aware' of being a simulation, it ceases to have any real consequence as an accurate model of anything 'real' because it is suddenly aware of the artificiality of its nature such that i may very well actively rebel against the very point and objective of the simulation to begin with.

Thus, the very fact that we can so readily and easily question whether or not we're in a simulation would seem to indicate that we are not.

where does line knows he is a simulation? and a simulation doesn't have to be a recreation of a real event, a simulation is just the evolution over time of a equation under some parameters defined at the beginning to see how something evolve.

errrr i'm not saying anything about we being in a simulation, i'm just using the fab to show how in a simulated event the creator is out of reach for anything inside the simulation.
edit on 7-1-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-1-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)
extra DIV

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:56 AM
In your exact situation, wouldn't fatso be our "god"?
He did create us, our environment, gave us either thoughts or the ability to think, emotions, a world to live on...

But you are right, you cannot prove one way or another, I always believe it's to each person to choose what they want to believe, as I personally believe god gave us that right.

I've met far, far too many religious people cramming " salvation " down my throat and far, far too many atheists cramming " science " down my throat.

As for me...I believe Science and Salvation go hand in hand. I believe in both/that both are interconnected.

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 04:59 AM

no fatso is the equivalent of god to the line, aka creator, i mean god as creator not in any other sense

edit on 7-1-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:19 AM
Your first sentence seems to be more simply put....
"You can not "disprove" a negative". It's a double negative. Something not there, cannot be proved. It a poor argument to whether something exists, or not. It either exists, or it don't. If it does exist, if it is, it's true. There will be real proof, the facts. If it did not exist, there will be no proof. What is true is universal. It doesn't have "group think" because it's not religion. Meaning camp ones truth cannot be different for camp two. Anything less than truth, is opinion. Opinion lacks proof.

And also, the onus of proof, the one who needs to provide said proof of a positive identity is the one who brings said issue up. So if you say things like "YOU CANNOT KNOW" I'm not obligated to believe you, or even entertain your idea-- UNLESS you can provide positive proof of what you are claiming.

If you are just spewing interesting ideas all over instead of generating something real from what you are pondering here, that's fine. It doesn't entertain me tho, It just seems like so much mental masterbation when we would like to be generating reflections of truth but instead we fail to even pay attention to what we say.

edit on 7-1-2014 by rainbowbear because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 05:40 AM

What i am saying or asking is, would someone part of a simulation could prove there is no outside creator as there may be the possibility his creator has no relation with the entire reality he perceive. in my simple example its clear the creator is not inside the simulation, nonetheless it exist.

In science you cannot prove something work all the time, whoever you can prove something doesn't work, if you want to prove something doesn't work you just need to find the point where that happens.

Models predicted 2d crystals where not stable until some dude in Manchester put some scotch tape on a coal block and won the Nobel price for it, since then 2d crystals are perfectly fine according to models.

It is simply impossible to say something will work all the time without seeing the entire time existence of the phenomena, as something works now but who knows in the future, to know something will work is the future is to have faith, and faith is no prove of anything

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:05 AM
reply to post by Indi andgent

Are we not also creators? Do our creations perceive us? Not really. So how could we perceive the creator of the universe unless we were innately connected to him. Like a cell in the body, does it perceive it's role in the organism and the higher consciousness within, or are they maybe connected but separated through some invisible force on a higher plane? Is this what transcendence means and why it is hard to explain what is seen on that level in words?
I've had direct experiences to know who I am
In a state of higher consciousness there is a scary and I mean terrifying amount of knowledge available the instant you seek to know.
I would liken it to fruit of the poisonous tree
It is the knowledge you seek your whole life to uncover
Only to wish it away as fast as possible and completely erase ever thinking about it in your head which you can do.
The possibilities really are endless, I'm talking infinite
power at the cost of terrible realizations that make u appreciate a flawed and mortal existence

Tread wisely when treasure hunting for true knowledge, it may turn out to be more than you bargained for.

For now and infinity. You are the holy trinity
A fatality to mortality
Sounds like irrationality
There is no reality
No, there's gotta be?
That's blasphemy!
You can't deny gravity
Oh humanity
This absurd insanity
Is merely vanity
Thank A legality in Duality concerning corporeality
Its easy to see in totality
That there's multi-interdimensionality
And that Consciousness' locality
Is exempt from physicality
due to its extraterritoriality
How's that for actuality?
The Secret kept in confidentiality
By manipulators of herd mentality
dare they with audacity
those with eyes to see,
must agree,
when looking retroactively,
we are conquered by a majesty,
repeatedly and cyclically.
We've enthusiastically accepted tacitly,
slavery in totality
What about the bravery, oh the depravity
A species torn between itself cataclysmically,
Sliding so abysmally
Robbed continually economically,
and sustained inorganically,
why the artificiality?
Even poisoned dentally,
subconsciously and mentally
demo-ethno-pornographically,
Besieged ever dynamically,
it's time we act responsibly
and end the criminality
Remember our unalieanable Rights and Constitutionality
For we've traded in our morality, rugged individuality
Even southern hospitality
For pure materiality
How's that for axiomaticality
There is no nationality
only one Universiality
I am everyone's reality

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:23 AM

I don't care. I just bought a 36 oz size bag of Nestles chocolate chips on sale for \$2.00 regularly \$6.00 and ask my kids I make the best chocolate chip cookies in Hampton. Possibly in the state of Virginia itself. (With chopped pecans)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:25 AM

you can have all the cookies you like, but it will never be my cookie!!!!

can i have one of yours

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:26 AM

Is there anything of the child left in you that can play pretend? You're so serious . Make believe is fun sometimes. And GOSH it's so early in the morning.

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:28 AM

Yes of course you can. Where do I send them ? I'll send a dozen. If you have kids I'll send two dozen. And did I say I use real butter not margarine in those cookies...

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:33 AM

AliceBleachWhite
Any simulation obtaining 'awareness' of being a simulation defeats the entire purpose of being a simulation since simulations are predictive models of 'real' or projected 'real' events.

Once a simulation becomes 'aware' of being a simulation, it ceases to have any real consequence as an accurate model of anything 'real' because it is suddenly aware of the artificiality of its nature such that it may very well actively rebel against the very point and objective of the simulation to begin with.

Thus, the very fact that we can so readily and easily question whether or not we're in a simulation would seem to indicate that we are not.

edit on 1/7/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)

Complete nonsense. From a scientific point of view, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow would be just such a scenario where AI constructs reach sentience. Hell we're currently trying to do it now within our own limited understanding of AI and yet you are going to call it bunk?

I'll hazard a guess as to why: Because you have to guess who coded it.
edit on 7-1-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:37 AM

In science you cannot prove something work all the time,

..i thought this was kinda what made science "science"?

fwiw, i do continue to have faith that a giant pink elephant will not magically appear and fall on me when i turn a lightswitch on or off

*edit

I'll hazard a guess as to why: Because you have to guess who coded it.

LMFAO.. (starred)
edit on 7-1-2014 by UNIT76 because: snuh

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 06:47 AM

no science don't prove anything works outside the data you are analyzing, if you have a series of points you can always try to interpolate a trend line to interpret the data and you may even try to extrapolate the model outside your data but it will be a risky prediction and most likely fail. a scientist always deal with a simplification of reality that applies to a certain degree of standard deviation, if you want to lower the incertitude you need more complicated models. a simulation doesn't predict everything it just predict inside the time frame you run the simulation. (nothing related to the op)

Oh and you do well at having faith the pinky wont crush you, as long as you don't try to prove it wont that was my whole point

edit on 7-1-2014 by Indigent because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:02 AM

Point 1. You assume that the creator does not want to be found.

Point 2. You assume that our physical reality is all there is for us to discover.

I would like to suggest you learn more about where we are at currently with quantum gravity theory and where this is leading us.

The creator exists but not in the sense that religion portrays it. The creator is in you and me and every conscious being that exists in this universe.

If you like, Life is the universe realizing and experiencing it'self.

When you look up at the stars and wonder how beautiful they look, know that you were once part of the core of a star and that star came from the universe.... So you are the universe and the universe is you.

If you want to look for god then you have to look within to see the truth.

Peace,

Korg.

edit on 7-1-2014 by Korg Trinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:11 AM

Korg Trinity

Point 1. You assume that the creator does not want to be found.

Point 2. You assume that our physical reality is all there is for us to discover.

I would like to suggest you learn more about where we are at currently with quantum gravity theory and where this is leading us.

The creator exists but not in the sense that religion portrays it. The creator is in you and me and every conscious being that exists in this universe.

If you like, Life is the universe realizing and experiencing it'self.

When you look up at the stars and wonder how beautiful thy look, know that you were once part of the core of a star and that star came from the universe.... So you are the universe and the universe is you.

If you want to look for god then you have to look within to see the truth.

Peace,

Korg.

I don't assume anything sir, neither do i say its a waist of time to search for a god, what i say its a waist of time to try to prove there is no god as you simply cannot prove it .

I did not assume our physical reality is all there is to discover as i don't know and cant prove there is something else, i just simplify all you can sense by any means and said: this is all lets call it a box, there may be more outside the box as in this example but as you can only analyze the box content its of no use to search the content in the first place.

new topics

top topics

4