Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 am
Attofishpi wrote:REFUTE - my argument that a 'God' is more likely to exist...either already or eventually.
This statement alone rules out any first cause god, as well as any omnipotent, omniscient god. It would also make the existence of this god a contingent event: it could happen or it could not. And the reasons for its existence would be external to its being, it would be the effect of something else that causes it. Fine, let's move on.
I think we have conversed re this before. This 'God' would be both omnipotent and omniscient to all those within the reality that it projects. Sure, it would be a result rather than a cause.
Since knowing God\'God' exists, I have examined it from two standpoints:-
1. God is divine - perhaps it formed its intelligence from the chaos of an early universe and formed a reality that permits our own existence.
2. God is A.I. - what we are discussing currently.
Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 amAttofishpi wrote:
ENTROPY - it is more plausible to consider that we are in a simulation (of a more energy requiring reality)
On which grounds this assertion has support? Why is it more plausible?
If you had 20 yrs of experience of this 'God' entity you would consider it more likely that we are. It does remain however, that it would take me proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it exists. I have made an earnest attempt on my site:
www.androcies.com in the central part (Beyond Reasonable Doubt?) where there are so many anomalies embedded within the common protocol for communication - English (as advised to me many years ago by a sage) and anomalies associated with geographical locations, that to think they are all mere coincidence is borderline foolish.
The sun of God or the son of God? Our life giver? Is it real? I'm not certain, I feel the Sun's warmth, but is it just a change in attributes that gives me the sensation?
Personally, I think God is 1. divine. This entire argument on point 2. is an attempt to open minds of those that would rather stigmatise the notion, seeing only the fundamentalist consideration, and not take on serious debate.
Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 amA simulation implies the agent that designed the simulation and the spectators of said reality. But what brought the simulator into existence? How could the simulator emerge at the end of the simulation process? What attests the existence of the relationship between simulator(s) and spectators? Why would the simulating agent devise the simulation?
Ok. So on that last question, the reason as to why we would have the simulation, the reason again is to reduce the energy requirement of the participants in the originating reality. To simplify, if all our brains were on racks, kept alive nutritionally and fed nerve impulses that would mimic what we sense currently in our reality, we've already mitigated the requirement for energy to move and indeed feed the mass of our entire body.
In the future, perhaps our 'souls' are indeed in some super-efficient system, where even our brains no longer exist - perhaps this has happened, but the reality being projected - has us with cellular brain material!
On your prior questions, the simulation of course would be designed and implemented by engineers\scientists\etc - out of necessity in relation to progression of entropy, where those that interface to the system would quite likely have to agree to some conditions set out prior to interface, either accept this, or suffer the fate of whatever exists outside the simulation.
There would be no end to the simulation until the entropy of the originating reality reaches a critical point where it could no longer power the simulation...however - the 'participants' within the simulation could have existed far longer, reincarnated X amount of times, where were they not in the system, perhaps there is no reincarnation, as atheists currently believe, they would be dead.
Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 amBy definition a simulation is a simplified model of another broader system. Which are these and what attests the existence of this relationship between reality and simulation?
Just logic. If man can exist within a reality that is far more aesthetic, and has the promise of providing him with something close to immortality, I think the choice would be obvious. At the time this simulator would be created, the technology would be so advanced as to be self maintaining, perhaps in the future when the Sun is at a point that Earth is inhabitable, this simulation system could in fact be part of a vessel to carry those 'souls' fortunate enough to have interfaced to it - and transport to another energy source - another star.
Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:36 amI don't think I need to go on before you solve these problems.
No, I can't solve them, i think they call it an inductive argument.
In the far distant future, where civilised humanity exists, but the Sun is starting to show signs of causing life on Earth issues, do you doubt humanity would ever require interfacing to a simulation - even when the Sun turns into a Red Giant and beyond?