The redneck strike again.

[The Grand Nudger]

If that were true, a computer programmer, not a god - created the universe. /skinscat

(but would it really matter, wouldn't we just ask the same questions over about that programmers environment? If we've made it this far across bifrost I see no reason to stop moving forward)

[Confused Ape]

If that were true, a computer programmer, not a god - created the universe.

This just means that the true nature of the God who created our universe would be 'not a god at all'. They would effectively have Godlike powers where our simulated universe is concerned, though, because they could could make changes to the simulation or even end it.

(but would it really matter, wouldn't we just ask the same questions over about that programmers environment? If we've made it this far across bifrost I see no reason to stop moving forward)

From another article about it -

http://news.discovery.com/space/are-we-l...121216.htm

British philosopher Nick Bostrom published a paper that proposed the universe we live in might in fact really be a numerical computer simulation.

.... Bostrom imagined “stacked” levels of reality, “we would have to suspect that the post-humans running our simulation are themselves simulated beings; and their creators, in turn, may also be simulated beings. Here may be room for a large number of levels of reality, and the number could be increasing over time.”

To compound this even further, Bostrom imagined a hierarchy of deities, “In some ways, the post-humans running a simulation are like gods. However, all the demigods except those at the fundamental level of reality are subject to sanctions by the more powerful gods living at lower levels.”

Only the beings living at the fundamental level of reality would be in a position to look for something that transcends the 'true' physical universe.

On the other hand - Is Our Universe a Hologram?

This page has a very short video explaining the basics. I'm not sure if that means the Brahman is flat.

[The Grand Nudger]

Only the beings living at the fundamental level of reality would be in a position to look for something that transcends the 'true' physical universe.

I think the elephant in the room on this one is that we would be at a loss as to explain which beings, at what level, were at the fundamental level. Or even if there were a fundamental level. Turtles all the way down. Any point we stop at will immediately be subject to criticism as having been, ultimately, decided upon for no defensible reason. We're using alot of oxygen to describe the contents of an empty box - and whenever that happens...it's like a canary in the mines to me, with regards to rational thought. I'm personally going to make sure there's a road under my car before i floor the pedal, you know? If I don't, I really shouldn't be surprised later to find that I had, in fact, gone off the road completely. Even if there actually were an invisible road under my car - it wouldn't make me wise...and I wouldn't call it a good decision - to gun it anyway.

[Confused Ape]

I think the elephant in the room on this one is that we would be at a loss as to explain which beings, at what level, were at the fundamental level. Or even if there were a fundamental level. Turtles all the way down.

We haven't succeeded in creating a proper simulation of the universe yet which means we're at the bottom. It's computers all the way up to fundamental reality.

Any point we stop at will immediately be subject to criticism as having been, ultimately, decided upon for no defensible reason. We're using alot of oxygen to describe the contents of an empty box - and whenever that happens...it's like a canary in the mines to me, with regards to rational thought.

But the people who came up with this idea are physicists and a philosopher .

I'm personally going to make sure there's a road under my car before i floor the pedal, you know? If I don't, I really shouldn't be surprised later to find that I had, in fact, gone off the road completely. Even if there actually were an invisible road under my car - it wouldn't make me wise...and I wouldn't call it a good decision - to gun it anyway.

I know what you mean. There's no point in believing any scientific model of the universe is true until somebody proves that one of them really is true.

Hmm. I wonder if I could misrepresent the holographic universe idea to prove that the Earth is really flat.

[The Grand Nudger]

I know what you mean. There's no point in believing any scientific model of the universe is true until somebody proves that one of them really is true.

Amen.

[The Grand Nudger]

We haven't succeeded in creating a proper simulation of the universe yet which means we're at the bottom. It's computers all the way up to fundamental reality.

Whew!. That one almost slipped by me. That definitely does not follow. Couldn't your programmer have put us 1 lvl away from "the top" - and yet more things more levels "down"? Speaking of this top down and bottom up bit. Is a top down universe what we experience when we observe whatever part of it we -can- observe? Perhaps what we can;t see is full of topdown stuff - but that still doesn't leave us with any rational reason for claiming that it is there. It's just an unrealized possibility. I don't think we even have the grounds to establish a number for that possibility. As far as explanations go, explaining the unknown by reference to the unknown seems counterproductive and difficult to me.

[Confused Ape]

Whew!. That one almost slipped by me. That definitely does not follow. Couldn't your programmer have put us 1 lvl away from "the top" - and yet more things more levels "down"?

But wouldn't that just be part of the simulation we happen to be in? There would only be the programmer who is in fundamental reality. This isn't quite the same thing as our programmer being in a simulation which was programmed by another programmer who is in another simulation etc.

Speaking of this top down and bottom up bit. Is a top down universe what we experience when we observe whatever part of it we -can- observe? Perhaps what we can;t see is full of topdown stuff -

but that still doesn't leave us with any rational reason for claiming that it is there. It's just an unrealized possibility. I don't think we even have the grounds to establish a number for that possibility.

The physicists who think we might be in a computer simulation do have a rational reason for thinking it.

Cosmic rays offer clue our universe could be a computer simulation

As far as explanations go, explaining the unknown by reference to the unknown seems counterproductive and difficult to me.

The unknown here is just an idea which they think could be proved right or wrong some day.

[The Grand Nudger]

The physicists who think we might be in a computer simulation do have a rational reason for thinking it.

You think so? Meh, I don't know. I'm not sure why we put those two things in the order that we do (in that article). Why would we maintain that the universe has the features of a simulation" rather than stating that a simulation has some features of the universe. Wouldn't it, as part of the universe, operating in the universe? Why would we be surprised to see this similarity or conclude that it indicates something about the universe..rather than something about simulations? Perhaps we notice similarities in simulations and the universe because the same fundamental forces give rise to both?

[Tonus]

The physicists who think we might be in a computer simulation do have a rational reason for thinking it.

Porn, right? It has to be porn.

[The Grand Nudger]

Think I found a simpler way to express my last post. When we find a baseball, we see that it has mass - one of the characteristics of what we might call "the universe" Why do we then not say to ourselves "Hmn, how curious, perhaps the universe is like a baseball?" Don't we make the much stronger claim - this baseball has characteristics consistent with something "of this universe"? If you could explain to me why this is true for a baseball but not a computer simulation, or if you could explain to me why we might have a rational justification for considering -the universe- as having some quality that belongs to a baseball, rather than the usual order in which we might place those objects in relation to each other - I'd be a little closer to convinced.