God and Our Simulated Universe

Because you quit reading, you missed the point. Unsurprising given you're a leaf.

Your premises have us in a perfectly material universe. Brains are part of that. Get it yet?

The only way to justify free will existing is by claiming somehing immaterial exists, like spirits or whatever

Hence the 2nd post

Not an argument. Sorry about pointing out the gaping contradiction in your reasoning.

Part 1 fails. Part 2 is just you mentaly masturbating based on garbage reasoning.

You said you quit reading. How can you know my point if you didn't read my point? Appreciate the bump.

You're assuming new math and computational power that can do that in a dead universe. If thats possible im not all together sure adding free will changes things.

Because their instantaneous state and their inputs differ.

All you've done here is begged the question by declaring that free will is real despite this mode that can predict everything physical in a wholely physical universe, and then showing that this means the univers was meant to produce free willed beings.

>Free will is real because free will is real.

Not interesting.

>that does not mean it is not discoverable.
no, but the reality is that to copy it accurately, you'd have to have all of the information, which means a machine that can create universes.
further, just having a machine that creates universes isn't evidence that you've actually created our universe, since there may be information you didn't see, rules that existed once and don't exist anymore.

>If we can simulate the "birth" of the universe
Then we could state that the natural world has evidence to suggest it doesnt need a creator to come about. Right?

>ginger and no freckles
perfection

An individual can choose to commit suicide and a individual can choose to undergo a form of self-sacrifice to improve the condition of people they will never meet. Evidence of irrational choice.

Ooor you can have something supernatural greater than the universe, that can predict it as easily as you can predict your own drawing.

Like a God.

If you dont like freckles, you might be a gay. You should watch some gay porn to check.

i like freckles on brown haired grills
freckled gingers are gross

Good catch, we could say that we could simulate TO the beginning of the universe, t=1, but no further for the laws of the universe were not yet in motion and anything beyond the universe is beyond our current imaginations as both scientists and philosophers.

Bare assertion. Killing yourself may be a rational choice.

Also, even if it isnt, a machine going haywire because it is broken in some way is not proof it is defying physics

Beyond you, maybe.

You fail at basic reasoning.

>liking brownhaired women

YOURE NOT FUCKIN WHITE

youtu.be/_20yiBQAIlk
CS Lewis touches on a few of your ideas.

Attached: 1536729640289.gif (370x280, 305K)

In either event, you need
>a machine the size of the universe,
or
>an understanding of the universe which allows you to recreate the universe at a smaller scale
>a machine that can handle that creation
or
>some other way to exit and look back.
and in any of these events, your personal choices cannot be shown accurate, since, again, there is nothing which suggests that the universe didn't once change its laws, just like we (might) change the universe.
I agree, there is a deity, but to me it's a thought experiment which proves that this isn't a new chase.
>What does the clay say to the potter?

>If we live in a purely material universe,
>>at any one point in time, every particle in our universe has a DEFINITIVE velocity, spin, mass, etc.

Wrong. Even a material universe like ours operates through quantum probabilities. There is no "objective truth." So, the rest of your argument doesn't really matter. Life might also seem to violate the second law of thermodynamics. But it doesn't.

>Why does this perfect simulation which incorporates all matter and information in the universe fail? Could it be that the source of free will and the essence of life exists "outside" of reality?

At least outside of our readily observable reality

I think yes, our will/souls derives from somewhere else (probably pulsars) and our bodies are only receivers/transmitters in this simulation.

brown is a European hair color Shlomo
non-whites of every other race have black hair

What does rationality have to do with it? Right or wrong doesn’t enter into it, the brain is a physical system and makes its decisions on previous and current inputs and whatever internal logic it has. It’s best not to dwell on this and continue on as though free will is real because it will drive you to madness.

That totally Newtonian and wrong dude.

Our brains are not binary but rather quantum processors and therefor no way man.

>. Even a material universe like ours operates through quantum probabilities
I love this absolutely unfounded bullshit assertion.
Nigger, prove the Cat in the box didn't have a view point worth knowing?
Schrodinger was only giving you a placeholder because your view was limited.
It's useful, sure, but it's not fact, it's evidence only that you haven't yet observed.

If it’s all a simulation then the machine that it’s running on is large enough to hold it. Perhaps it is thin provisioned and if we try to run our own simulation more CPU time will be allocated. Even if more wasn’t allocated we wouldn’t notice. The process would take the same time to us, but to the operators it would slow down.

>we could say that we could simulate TO the beginning of the universe, t=1, but no further
But that wouldnt be true, if we had the items to create a cake and were stating t=1 when the moment cake exists, we would have information prior to that occurrence if we were able to create it. Maybe not much before, but for sure prior to t=1

Our consciousness experiences the sensations caused by matter, our perceptions of matter can only be measured in terms of our own sensory experience, but we can never experience the object itself only our sensory impressions of it. Thus material existence is not necessary nor is it provable.

But to us matter appears to exist as real as anything possibly could be, short of our own undeniable consciousness. How then do we reconcile the inability to prove a realist conception of material objects with an inability to disbelieve the material reality?

The most coherent answer is that matter does not exist in the realist sense, but as thought--a source capable of causing sensory impressions on other minds (immaterial idealism). But then these thoughts can only be sustained by and within the mind of God.

Thus, the conception of reality as a 'computer simulation' is a proper analogy--with this simulation created by and existing within the mind of God--as this is the most coherent explanation of both our consciousness and our sensory impressions.

>Could it be that the source of free will and the essence of life exists "outside" of reality?
If you're living in a simulation, is that not guaranteed?

>these premises are solid.

Not really. There are at least a few problems...

> every particle has mass
Not true

> there exists a hypothetical model, a perfect mathematical formula
Also not true. Something things in the universe, from the very minute to the very grand, are random.

>Shlomo

Fuck you, goy. It's Benjamin

>If it’s all a simulation then the machine that it’s running on is large enough to hold it.
In that case, it could crash if it required too much information at the same time. Anyone up for figuring out how to blue screen the simulation?

Be master of time

You missed the point and found yourself stuck upon conjecture and details. Point is that all information has a definitive state in the universe. If all information has a definitive state, then a hypothetical model could simulate its progression. Either you believe that the universe is real or not. I hope you believe that there is an objective truth.

Even if it crashed and got rebooted or reloaded from a snapshot, we could never perceive it.

Well, clearly the "timelord" "Doctor" didn't crash the universe.
Though I'm not sure his universe operated quite the same.
Anything within the Universe that we could do would be allowed by the program, or would be the program.
The trick would be deciphering which was which, and from within!?

What if god doesn't want to pay extra for backup cloud storage?

Well, our model is reliant upon the definitive states of its constituent particles/energy/information. Prior to those "particle's" emergence, our model has little basis.

Another universe...

Attached: 11080656_829581053778610_8616586778582549347_o.jpg (1368x1368, 147K)

obviously the universe is not completely rational, material or objective. subjective being is self eviident

>god being cheap

Jews are right, aren't they?

here, have some based oc art:
youtu.be/Ix8rR-D296g

Attached: 411.jpg (2400x1528, 417K)

that's a really good point. going fully heretical to my christian faith:
that could be the source of deja vu, maybe even prophecy? people who were operating on sections of the program that either didn't reset properly due to hardware, or recorded in a different order and was read by the reseting simulation to match last known state.

You don't think there are Jews in the multiverse?

God is evil:
>This world is a prison we cannot escape, in order to survive every creature in the planet must eat another one. Which is the definition of evil.

>I hope you believe that there is an objective truth

Truth is not the same as reality. Truth is a value given to a proposition that describes a circumstance that conforms with reality. But that does not necessitate that Truth exists as anything more than a conceptualization within a conscious mind. If reality were such that there were no conscious minds there would not be any Truth, unless you wish to hold to some Platonic Formalism where immaterial propositions with truth values exist independently of consciousness.

This is not to say that absent Truth there is not a reality. Chair A may exist in reality, but its not necessarily the case that it is True that Chair A exists if there is no proposition existing somewhere in some mind to 'carry' the truth value.

This is a distinction that gets overlooked very often and causes much confusion, as when some people claim something such as "There is no truth" and others take it to mean "There is no reality."

>Thus material existence is not necessary nor is it provable
Why would it have to be necessary for it to be true? As for it not being provable, it is within the context of us being able to demonstrate things within reality and confirm it with others.
>The most coherent answer is that matter does not exist in the realist sense
It does. within the context of us being able to demonstrate things within reality and confirm it with others that also exist within this reality. Things are demonstrable within reality.
>but as thought--a source capable of causing sensory impressions on other minds (immaterial idealism)
You would have to special plead in something for this claim to be true, though.
>with this simulation created by and existing within the mind of God--as this is the most coherent explanation of both our consciousness and our sensory impressions
How did you determine this was the most coherent explanation, when we have no evidence to suggest a God exists?

>Sorry user, but life doesn’t stop your calculation at all. What you think of as free will is a deterministic system. That decision you thought was your free will was your brain making the only decision that was possible for it to make given the starting conditions of that moment and the inputs it was given.
but then why is there any need for subjective experience?

Go read about the Sumerians and their explanation of the asteroid belt and the formation of earth and then go and suck a dick.

>>This world is a prison we cannot escape, in order to survive every creature in the planet must eat another one. Which is the definition of evil.
you could eat only plants

If we are going down that road sure. Jumping timelines as we like to meme could be getting moved to a different instance as well.

Here’s the problem with a closed-form model of the entire state of the universe: it necessitates modeling your own computer. Your model will have to model itself, and model that, and model that... Big O = n^Inf

That everything dies is a blessing. Eternal life is a curse. Nebulae are gunsmoke from god trying to kill himself.

The model would have sufficient basis, and the preexisting particles would demonstrate the potentials for their existence. Which would be prior to t=1

I would suggest this is you being pedantic to your view of how to define truth. You obviously understand that there may be a factual condition. That would be the truth of the situation, could we only observe it. Not being able to observe the factual conditions because we cannot comprehend them, unless I believe that I create the universe, does not change those factual conditions.
Though, clearly, you prefer to believe that there is no such thing.as factual conditions, please let me practice my martial arts on your face.

A self-correcting ecosystem is evil. This is called order.

>Truth is not the same as reality. Truth is a value given to a proposition that describes a circumstance that conforms with reality.
but what if that proposition is an exact ratio with "reality". is truth then the same as reality?

We can play this game of regression, but the point is, prior to the "birth" of the universe, we have insufficient data avaiable to us to wager on what came before and if t=0 or t=-1 makes any sense.

>That everything dies is a blessing. Eternal life is a curse. Nebulae are gunsmoke from god trying to kill himself.
but if God can't kill himself, then we only die in the mind of God, we dont really die, because we never existed, we were creations in the mind of God.

>Point is that all information has a definitive state in the universe.
At what point are you yourself "definite". That's like saying water is definite when it can be water steam and ice.

>if there exists a definitive state for every iota of information in the universe, then there exists a hypothetical model, a perfect mathematical formula, which could accurately incorporate every iota of information and predict the interactions of every particle of the universe.

There is no such thing as "particles" and the universe does not understand the human language known as "math".

>While this mathematical model is beyond our conception, that does not mean it is not discoverable.
>contradiction the post

>In a lifeless universe, it should then be possible to reverse simulate the progression of the universe to its hypothetical origin or at least indefinitely. It should also be possible to simulate the universe until its end.
>origin
>start
>from...nothing?
shit ain't logical.

>It should also be possible to simulate the universe until its end.
>it ends
>for no reason

Come at me, I got all night.

Attached: 1429608177818.png (471x446, 259K)

Bump

All you can demonstrate is that you experience sensory impressions to yourself. To any other consciousness you and all that you do is experienced as a sensory impression. Any such demonstration you or anyone else might attempt remains but a sensory impression. This does not necessitate that matter does not exist, but if it does we have no way of determining if it does. All we know of 'matter' is that it can in some cases cause sensory impressions in conscious minds.

This is why I use the term coherent rather than proven; as in it is the worldview that is most consistent with itself and coheres most closely to reality as our conscious minds experience it. The OP and others have demonstrated but some of the incoherence of a strictly materialist worldview.

Aside from us being able to determine that the universe can come from natural means, sure. I get what you mean though as far as t goes

>prior to the "birth" of the universe,
shit, prior to the records we may have kept of conditions, we have insufficient data. and even after we start compiling, again, we risk recording a tool that does the same thing shown to us, with different mechanisms from the program.

>>In a lifeless universe, it should then be possible to reverse simulate the progression of the universe to its hypothetical origin or at least indefinitely. It should also be possible to simulate the universe until its end.
>>origin
>>start
>>from...nothing?
>shit ain't logical.
it presupposes some being from which to reverse simulate as well as a being who would objectively do the reverse simulation. thus it would not be a truly lifeless universe

You completely missed the distinction. This is not being pedantic. This is distinguishing the difference between Truth and Reality (factual conditions if you prefer). The existence of Truth depends upon the existence of propositions. Propositions are immaterial things. Either immaterial things can exist independently of conscious minds or they cannot. In a strictly materialist worldview they cannot. Thus in a reality where there are no conscious minds, such as before any humans existed, there would be no Truth even though there would be a Reality.

>All you can demonstrate is that you experience sensory impressions to yourself. To any other consciousness you and all that you do is experienced as a sensory impression. Any such demonstration you or anyone else might attempt remains but a sensory impression.
matter is self evident just as a subjective being is self evident. if I bash you in the head with a hammer, it is not just a sensory impression to you, it is your head being bashed in and it is very real

No reason that this model breaks down with life. You assume that consciousness is not deterministic, and that free will is a property of life. Most scientists don't believe in free will. Under the deterministic model, all events could be predicted forever if we knew the state of every force and molecule in the universe, including the behavior of life forms. Not sure what you are trying to say really.

lol two different people respond to me with two different threats of violence.

I must have struck a nerve...

Do know how to define the word Truth? Have you used it? Then it exists, if we are conscious or not.

youtu.be/kkdCMXxuzGw

Attached: 1544289996449.jpg (1088x526, 390K)

its not a threat of violence, just a fact. its the easiest way to demonstrate the point. say for example, I took one of your shoes. it would not be just a perception to you. you would, in reality have only one shoe which you would have a subjective feeling about, one way or the other. or if i handed you a million dollars, would you say, no thanks, that is just a perception, or would you take the money?

not a threat of violence, a point that the claim that there are no facts leads to reasonable questions of why I should care about anything? If you believe there are no factual conditions, then your pain, your disappearing, simply cannot matter, because we can't prove you exist to begin to matter.

do you have proofs schizo? if not, sit down and take your pills

>not a threat of violence, a point that the claim that there are no facts leads to reasonable questions of why I should care about anything? If you believe there are no factual conditions, then your pain, your disappearing, simply cannot matter, because we can't prove you exist to begin to matter.
exactly, subjective being is therefore self evident

>All you can demonstrate is that you experience sensory impressions to yourself
We can, again, confirm this sensory impression with others and make a more objective determination based on these senses. They're demonstrable within the reality we experience.
>This does not necessitate that matter does not exist, but if it does we have no way of determining if it does
This is like saying we could be a brain in a vat, therefore we dont know anything. I have no reason or evidence to suggest this is true, all i have is the interactions within this reality.
>This is why I use the term coherent rather than proven; as in it is the worldview that is most consistent with itself and coheres most closely to reality
In what sense? Special pleading a God into situations like this isnt more coherent in any standard.

again the distinction is between Truth and Factual Conditions. I am not denying the existence or reality of Factual Conditions. I am denying the possibility of Truth existing independently of consciousness. My actual belief is that Truth does exist because an infinite eternal mind (God) contains it at all times. You have yet to address how immaterial things such as Truth, Propositions, Logic, Mathematics, and Morality can exist outside of consciousness.

That Juden Peterstein schtick about pain doesn't provide an answer to the problem.

emotions are expressions of our animalistic nature
due to our reasoning ability, our future species will probably lose emotions as they become redundant for their goal of information transfer

You're not explaining the problem, nor are you really finding an error.
You're creating a condition which doesn't exist and then complaining that others aren't joining you in that condition set.

No, you can't. All you know of "others" is sensory impressions, and the same goes for any knowledge they have of you. Relying on demonstrations to others puts you right back in the situation of having only your own consciousness and the sensory impressions it experiences and nothing else.

Yes, the brain in a vat is a comparable analogy. You are presupposing however that you are not a brain in a vat, you are presupposing that reality is exactly how you experience it, that your sensory impressions are accurate and valid and indicate both other minds and objective physical reality. Your position is completely circular.

It is not a special pleading as it is an explicit answer to the problems I've raised and does not alter the premises in any way.

Not him but
>My actual belief is that Truth does exist because an infinite eternal mind (God) contains it at all times.
How did you determine this without special pleading a God and these traits into this assertion?

>again the distinction is between Truth and Factual Conditions. I am not denying the existence or reality of Factual Conditions. I am denying the possibility of Truth existing independently of consciousness. My actual belief is that Truth does exist because an infinite eternal mind (God) contains it at all times. You have yet to address how immaterial things such as Truth, Propositions, Logic, Mathematics, and Morality can exist outside of consciousness.
they can't exist outside of consciousness, because they are subjective judgments about some object. they require an object and a subject. I have only one shoe, this makes my foot hurt, therefore it is immoral that you took my shoe. if there is no consicousness of a shoe, a foot and being capable of feeling hurt, then there is no basis for any moral judgment

>All you know of "others" is sensory impressions
All you know of "others" is sensory impressions.
All you know of yourself is sensory impressions.
Therefore you cannot know others because you have the same sensory impressions.
But, more importantly, you cannot know that you cannot know, because you cannot trust your sensory impressions.

>emotions are expressions of our animalistic nature
>due to our reasoning ability, our future species will probably lose emotions as they become redundant for their goal of information transfer
but they will still have a subjective basis. at that point the subject may not be individual feelings so much as overall utilitarian good for humanity, the universe or whatever, but that is still a subjective basis for making moral judgments etc.

>if we live in a purely material universe,
dropped

>Therefore you cannot know others because you have the same sensory impressions.
you can know others by sensory impressions and you can also know them inversely from your own subjective judgments, by the way they make you feel