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.
DeadSeraph
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.
Indigent
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 .
Indigent
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.
Indigent
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.
Indigent
In short you cannot know because there is always the possibility you aren't looking in the right place.
Shorter: YOU CANNOT KNOW
Indigent
reply to post by ItDepends
An endless chain of fatsos that end in a infinite loop, starting with the simulation fatso created.
Don't know don't care but i guess i created him
AliceBleachWhite
DeadSeraph
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.
AI would not be a 'simulation'.
It then boils down to an argument of semantics, as well as an examination of some philosophical paradigms if one were to take an opposing view.
Would an artificially constructed, self interrogatory, self conscious, cogent Intelligence be a 'simulation', or, would it be 'alive'?
I sit on the side of the fence where such would not be a simulation but a 'life'.
As to 'simulated' intelligence, we can look at any chatbot program that emulates "AI", like, for instance:
A. L. I. C. E. (no relation)
There's a distinction.
edit on 1/7/2014 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)
a universe is a class that contains (as elements) all the entities one wishes to consider in a given situation
If there was no universe there could be no life as life and the universe are one... this is what god is... so stating we can never know is denying your very existence.
Indigent
reply to post by Korg Trinity
no sir the first one is a proposition, nothing assumed there just set the base of the discussion.
the second one is not a assumption as i'm only defining universe as all there is that follow the rules that define you as a contained space, or a box.
what is physical reality? is it what you interact and observe? if you find something else, does that came to form part of your physical reality?
it seems for you universe is the stars galaxy's and all that stuff, for me universe is:
a universe is a class that contains (as elements) all the entities one wishes to consider in a given situation
If there was no universe there could be no life as life and the universe are one... this is what god is... so stating we can never know is denying your very existence.
Your definition of God is not really what most common religions have in mind and i don't think its what people try to prove don't exist, by any means it its clear you believe there is a god. if you where kind enough to re read all i have said is that not even searching in all the places you can search, finding no evidence of god is not a prove there isn't one and therefore is a waste
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.
If you want to find the big man in the sky with the grey beard... I fear you are doomed to failure and I would advice don't bother...
DeadSeraph
reply to post by Korg Trinity
Well I am glad that in the whole of human history, you have been born to tell us all the answers.
Indigent
reply to post by Korg Trinity
If you want to find the big man in the sky with the grey beard... I fear you are doomed to failure and I would advice don't bother...
Sir i clearly stated God as the creator, please have your cookie, you are not contributing anything related to the op
Indigent
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.
For the sake of the argument, let’s assume we live in a simulation
So let assume: That a doritos munching fatso wants to run a simulation.