God as computer

[max-greece]

"Since we are only capable of experiencing an approximation of the real universe in the first place, wouldn't a simulation only have to be good enough to fool us?"

Not really - you wouldn't build the model like that. It would start with nothingness and fundamental sub-particles spontaneously appearing (according to current "universe from nothing" models - that might change) these would form a shitstorm of particles kickstarting the big bang. If you don't get that start right then you end up with a totally different universe.

Now if our universe is real as opposed to virtual you'll be drifting away from reality from the get/go - the uncertainty principal ensures that, but in a digital universe there are no truly random events - everything is predictable and the uncertainty issue disappears.

Your program would follow the course of the existing universe - to the last dot on the last i - so to speak.

Like I said - theoretically.

[Angrboda]

What if's are generally only interesting if they lead to interesting questions, which this does not appear to do so.

Max's simulation of the universe hypothesis, I believe, refers to a speculation by a philosopher that we might live in a simulation, and that certain observable aspects of the universe might be artifacts of certain necessary properties of the simulation. (There's a thread on that around here somewhere.)

An important question is whether the mind of such a computer would be qualitatively different than our own, and if so, in what way. I think you meant to imply that it was qualitatively different by specifying it as a computer, but this is not necessarily the case. It's possible that a computer could have a mind that is qualitatively like our own, in which case the question becomes considerably less interesting. If you're suggesting that the mind of God is qualitatively different than our own, I don't see how that differs from much contemporary speculation that we can't "know the mind of God," only differing in the practical explanation of how that is. If that is your intent, it would help if you specified in what way you consider or hypothesized it being different than our own.

Some have asked how the computer came to be, and that appears to be the second dimension of your question, independent of the quality of mind question. The "what if God is a natural artifact instead of a supernatural artifact" question. I'm not sure that leads anywhere, but one of two videos recently posted by MindForgedManacle made the case that for many biblical stories, a being that is superhuman but not supernatural explains the story as well as a being that is superhuman and supernatural. ()

[max-greece]

What if's are generally only interesting if they lead to interesting questions, which this does not appear to do so.

Max's simulation of the universe hypothesis, I believe, refers to a speculation by a philosopher that we might live in a simulation, and that certain observable aspects of the universe might be artifacts of certain necessary properties of the simulation. (There's a thread on that around here somewhere.)

An important question is whether the mind of such a computer would be qualitatively different than our own, and if so, in what way. I think you meant to imply that it was qualitatively different by specifying it as a computer, but this is not necessarily the case. It's possible that a computer could have a mind that is qualitatively like our own, in which case the question becomes considerably less interesting. If you're suggesting that the mind of God is qualitatively different than our own, I don't see how that differs from much contemporary speculation that we can't "know the mind of God," only differing in the practical explanation of how that is. If that is your intent, it would help if you specified in what way you consider or hypothesized it being different than our own.

Some have asked how the computer came to be, and that appears to be the second dimension of your question, independent of the quality of mind question. The "what if God is a natural artifact instead of a supernatural artifact" question. I'm not sure that leads anywhere, but one of two videos recently posted by MindForgedManacle made the case that for many biblical stories, a being that is superhuman but not supernatural explains the story as well as a being that is superhuman and supernatural. ()

Actually my original source was a physicist who has proposed that some of the background noise of the universe resembles jitter in a digital system. I think he has an ongoing experiement to measure it.

Further, at this stage I am not implying the computer in question has a mind at all - its just a massively powerful laptop of the future running a program in the same dumb way that ours do today.

The user's universe, however, would have to be assumed to be virtual too - and identical to our own. I should have put that in before but I didn't want to make too long a post.

Whoever runs the computer here to make our virtual universe is doing it in every universe in the chain. We really will get to meet God after all.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Mister Agenda, if we're really living a simulation and manage to contact the users, I doubt they'll believe we're "living". If your character in a game stops responding to your commands and starts talking to you, would you think it's a malfunction or that it became self aware?

Presumably I would KNOW if the characters in my game are self-aware. If they are, aren't I beholden to treat them as people?

This is what I meant by the ethical implications of simulating conscious being on a computer.

In Star Trek: TNG, the holodeck character Moriarty figured out he was in a simulation and caused trouble by messing with the Enterprise. Rather than terminating Moriarty's simulated existence, they dealt with him by deceiving him into thinking he was free of the simulation. It may not have been honest, but it WAS dealing with Moriarty as a real person who had a right to not be summarily deleted or transfomed into a more tractable character.

Oh I agree if objects became self aware we'd need to treat them differently. I meant about us attempting to contact our users or makers, seems unrealistic that they'd take us seriously. We're obviously programmed to behave as if we're self aware if we've been allowed to go on for this long.

But the holodeck character was designed to interact with humans. Meaning it was within its capabilities as a software to detect humans. Computer game characters only interact with other things in the game and our commands delivered with computer language (haha, can you tell i know shit about programming). So if we want to interact with our makers, we'll need to rewrite the program to an extent to give ourselves these new capabilities. And we won't know how to do that if we can't determine if we're a program.

The types of malfunctions in Star Trek (Moriarty and Data's daughter) seem to be minor ones that lead to a new function. But if we're assuming that this is a simulated universe, then it'd require big changes to allow us to see beyond it, no? We'd probably be fixed by maintenance runs before we complete our rewrites.

[Angrboda]

Actually my original source was a physicist who has proposed that some of the background noise of the universe resembles jitter in a digital system. I think he has an ongoing experiement to measure it.

I am aware. I was trying to save words. Sorry for the confusion.

[max-greece]

Actually my original source was a physicist who has proposed that some of the background noise of the universe resembles jitter in a digital system. I think he has an ongoing experiement to measure it.

I am aware. I was trying to save words. Sorry for the confusion.

No biggie - just made me laugh - if there is a hole in my knowledge a mile wide it is philosophy - never studied it - just picked up bits along the way and attempt to deduce the rest.

[Cheerful Charlie]

First, I'm new here. Second I am a Christian. Third this is a serious question/speculation. It will be interesting (and hopefully enlightening) for me to read the responses.

So what if Who (What?) we call God is actually a computer (or a really advanced type of technology that we understand as a computer) and all that we see and detect in the universe is simply a part of a program? I don't imagine this computer is "personal" like the Christian God is, but, I suppose it could have attributes that seem to convey personhood. I imagine that somehow the "computer" is outside of the universe program, or so far "above" it to be, effectively, not part of the universe. I know there was a book about this years ago, but I don't the name of it.

So, is this a reasonable or workable theory? How would one reason it out? Is it possible, through reason or evidence to, if not prove it, make a plausible argument for something like this?

I am interested in reading speculations that are based on reason and from a skeptical and/or atheistic point of view.

(I mentioned that I am Christian just so anyone answering will understand my background. I am not interested in this post in answering questions about my faith. I can go to another thread and do that. Besides, this is an atheist message board, no one here is interested in Christianity).

impassibility. The doctrine that God has no emotions, that ascribing emotionality to God is a sort of anthropomorphism. and thus a failing. If we can make God angry or upset we are more powerful than god. Thus God does not act out of emotion, and all verses suggesting that need to be read allegorically.

If so, God acts out of intellectual motivations.So we could say that this view of God leads to a computer-like God whose intelligence is not like ours. This is a line of thinking that goes back to the middle ages, though they would not have known about computers as an analogy to an impassive God.

Related to this is the question does God act out of will or intellect. that is, If i like vanilla ice cream and hate brocolli, it is unlikely I reasoned myself into these dislikes. Is God likewise inclined to some things and disliking other things such as we like ice cream/ Or is everything done by God with a rational reason?

There has been a lot of theological controversy over such things over the centuries. It all relates to questions as to the true nature of God

Start by googling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impassibility
Welcome to the wonderful world of theology.

Cheerful Charlie