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.

 

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

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 


Who created fatso?




posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:28 AM
link   

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)



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   

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 .


WooooW!! Gosh didn't you know what you wrote?

let's recap....


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.


Hmmmmm....??? So that's not an assumption?


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.


And I suppose that is not another assumption then?

Also this is exactly what I meant when I said you assume we are not able to discover beyond our physical reality....


Indigent

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


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.

Peace,

Korg.


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



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:31 AM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   

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


But you see, it all becomes a circular debate. If you created fatso, who created you?

I understand your assumption, however, the ultimate flaw, which none of us knows, is HOW?

Tons of theories, but there remain mysteries that we just do not have answers for.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 




Peace,

Korg.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:44 AM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 


Funny how those same principles do not apply when the term "God" is applied, no?



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:50 AM
link   

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)


Indeed!

Can ALICE look up at the stars and wonder at the beauty?

Even though ALICE is indeed a product of the universe it cannot contemplate itself... it is not conscious.... It is not Self aware.....

Peace,

Korg.


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



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

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


Ahhh but there you have fallen into the trap of following organisations.... Religions don't have a clue about what god is... with the exception of Buddhism.

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...

If however you want to think outside the box then you need to understand what the fundamental levels of our reality are about.....

I urge you to research more before posting.... the subject you are posting about is multifaceted and deeper than I believe you have the knowledge at this time to understand.

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   

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.


Not if the 'purpose' of the simulation was different to what you thought it was. Perhaps the 'purpose' you propose for the simulation is not the correct one?


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.


Your definition of what constitutes a 'simulation' is very narrow.


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.


I disagree. The logic does not follow.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:03 AM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   

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.


I'm sure to most my words will mean nothing... as I would say 95% of all people wander their whole lives without realizing the truth.

Korg.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   

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


I beg to differ... if you are unable to understand what I said then please ask away.. I might be able to simplify it for you.

Korg.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
If we are living in a simulation, it is still reality for us. We have to treat the simulation as reality or the consequences of the program can cause us problems. It doesn't really matter if it is a simulation or reality, the same consequences apply.



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Belief in a Creator is indeed in a simulation.

Simulation
verb
[with object]
imitate the appearance or character of:
red ocher intended to simulate blood
pretend to have or feel (an emotion):
it was impossible to force a smile, to simulate pleasure
produce a computer model of:
future population changes were simulated by computer

So, if we are to reflect the creator, act like the creator, and draw our genesis from the creator, we are simulating our best idea of what it's like to be perfect, in nature. We are creating an imitation of " the real creator" in our best image.

By definition, if you believe in representing God, you are simulating god. Or at least, you believe you are....

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



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:35 AM
link   
This really dint generate the discussion i was hopping for and judging by the last 2 replies most people only read topic titles.

May this bland and tasteless tofu find some rest as i abandon the sinking boat

GIMME MY COOKIE BACK



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   

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.


I believe nothing except that nothing is real.

But I'll take that cookie, thank you!



posted on Jan, 7 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigent
 



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.


There is your god, you called him the doritos munching fatso or "DMF", or Dee-Em-Eff, you gave him a name and attributed powers to him that transcend all possibilities.

I know this is a thought experiment and all. The best place to start looking for a simulation is with yourself and observe the major and minor phenomenon in and around you. There is no need to construct DMF's because that would be a mockery of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join