[Europa (OP)]

If you watch the video he clearly talks about the Universe being a powerful computer simulation, meaning that everything including us was programmed.  Now I do not want to get into whether this is real or not, I just want to ask that if this were true, and Tyson says that it may be true, then we are the product of a great programmer who would fall into the vernacular of what God represents on the Earth.  So how can Tyson put forth this theory and claim that the computer simulations creator is not God?

Note, I have attached the description of the video which is real and if you search this topic you will find that it is real no matter how silly that this sounds.  That said if you find this ridiculous, please do not attribute that ridiculousness to me when I am not proposing this theory.

Search this in youtube to view video

Neil deGrasse Tyson: It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

I can't answer the main title question:   Does atheist N dGT believe in God?    I don't know, I'm not him.

I can talk a little about the rest of your post.
The simulation idea wasn't proposed by Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Most would agree that  Nick Bostrom's paper is one of the foundational documents, if not the principal origin of the newest version of the idea:
   "Are you living in a simulation",  Nick Bostrom,  Philosophical Quarterly, 2003, Vol. 52, No. 211,  pp 243-255

I say "newest version" because that's what many people would argue that it is.  We've only recently had computer technology and thus been able to articulate a discussion where terms like  "a computer simulation" could be used.   However, the idea is essentially that the world you (we) experience may not be real in the way you (we) may imagine it is,  it could be more like a dream or imaginary world.

   It's not especially "silly".  I think most people have wondered what the world is really like, is it real, does it exist in places where you aren't looking or is it just created and made solid around you as you move about in it?  Are you unique and the only real person in this world?  etc. etc.   Various civilizations have considered that our dreams may be another world of some kind, in which we can do certain things.  So the origin of these sorts of ideas (is the world real?) probably predates recorded history.

    Anyway, considering the computer simulation theory as it is at the moment -  if you want to define god as someone or something that made you, then I suppose you could call that programmer god.   Since you can also create a computer simulation of your own, does that make you god to some other simulations?  Was your great programmer in his own turn programmed by some other programmer - some other god figure to the god figure?   Is there any reason to call the programmer god at all - since they are no more godly than you are in any other way.     Overall the computer simulation argument neither solves or creates many theological or philosophical questions.   It just changes the terminology you might use when describing the same problems  (but that's just my opinion).

Best wishes to you.

[Europa (OP)]

Hi.

I can't answer the main title question:   Does atheist N dGT believe in God?    I don't know, I'm not him.

I can talk a little about the rest of your post.
The simulation idea wasn't proposed by Neil deGrasse Tyson.  Most would agree that  Nick Bostrom's paper is one of the foundational documents, if not the principal origin of the newest version of the idea:
   "Are you living in a simulation",  Nick Bostrom,  Philosophical Quarterly, 2003, Vol. 52, No. 211,  pp 243-255

I say "newest version" because that's what many people would argue that it is.  We've only recently had computer technology and thus been able to articulate a discussion where terms like  "a computer simulation" could be used.   However, the idea is essentially that the world you (we) experience may not be real in the way you (we) may imagine it is,  it could be more like a dream or imaginary world.

   It's not especially "silly".  I think most people have wondered what the world is really like, is it real, does it exist in places where you aren't looking or is it just created and made solid around you as you move about in it?  Are you unique and the only real person in this world?  etc. etc.   Various civilizations have considered that our dreams may be another world of some kind, in which we can do certain things.  So the origin of these sorts of ideas (is the world real?) probably predates recorded history.

    Anyway, considering the computer simulation theory as it is at the moment -  if you want to define god as someone or something that made you, then I suppose you could call that programmer god.   Since you can also create a computer simulation of your own, does that make you god to some other simulations?  Was your great programmer in his own turn programmed by some other programmer - some other god figure to the god figure?   Is there any reason to call the programmer god at all - since they are no more godly than you are in any other way.     Overall the computer simulation argument neither solves or creates many theological or philosophical questions.   It just changes the terminology you might use when describing the same problems  (but that's just my opinion).

Best wishes to you.

I believe that Tyson is on the simulation bandwagon because from a mathematical and gravitational standpoint that the universe can not be proven to exist as there is not enough mass to have gravitational expansion be possible, so they created dark matter.  All that said dark matter can not be proven and is only real inside and equation that started out as wrong and dark matter is the fix.  So this is just another theory that replaces dark matter with computer code.

What Tyson misses is that we are not in a computer, but that we are the computer. we were created of matter then walked away and ask where did we come from.  In any instance intelligence like Tyson has, will infer God as life is actually a grand computer system that can not self generate

[Bored chemist]

What does "admitted atheist" mean.
It's not a thing you "admit" to, it's a thing you rejoice in.

[Europa (OP)]

What does "admitted atheist" mean.
It's not a thing you "admit" to, it's a thing you rejoice in.

The anomaly is the Tyson says that he is an atheist and that now he is claiming that the universe was created, just as the creationist have always claimed.

So go figure.  But it is good to know that Tyson now believes in creation

[alancalverd]

It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world

But what is it a simulation of? And why?

[alancalverd]

When people didn't have computers, the universe was made of elephants and turtles.  Then it became misty gauze and geared spheres, followed by an infinitely rigid aether of zero density with a few ballistic rocks flying around. At least those models  had some predictive value, unlike the idea that everything is a pointlessly detailed simulation of itself.

[Europa (OP)]

It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world

But what is it a simulation of? And why?

Watch the video where Tyson explains himself.  In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter, but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity.  So all that said now the loonies in charge are claiming that you are really code in a great big computer, something like the Matrix I suppose but Tyson presents it as reality not fiction.

[Bored chemist]

The anomaly is the Tyson says that he is an atheist and that now he is claiming that the universe was created, just as the creationist have always claimed.

So... you somehow don't understand that the creator that he has in mind isn't God.

Would you like to think about that for a minute?
Then you will see there's no actual contradiction.

[alancalverd]

In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter, but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity.

The best physicists begin by assuming that the universe does exist, and our job is to create mathematical models of how it works. If the model doesn't predict the observation (by an order of magnitude, in this case!) the model is wrong but you can't dismiss the observation.

[Origin]

In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter

Well that's wrong.

but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity.

That's wrong too.

So how can Tyson put forth this theory and claim that the computer simulations creator is not God?

Why don't you email him and ask him if it is so important to you.

[Europa (OP)]

In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter

Well that's wrong.

but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity.

That's wrong too.

So how can Tyson put forth this theory and claim that the computer simulations creator is not God?

Why don't you email him and ask him if it is so important to you.

I will be wrong at some juncture.  You will never see this.

[Bored chemist]

I will be wrong at some juncture.  You will never see this.

You have been wrong repeatedly; we have seen it.

[Origin]

I will be wrong at some juncture.  You will never see this.

Well there no such thing as 'gravitational expansion' and recession velocities exceeding c do not violate Relativity.  So I'm going to have to disagree with you.

[Europa (OP)]

I will be wrong at some juncture.  You will never see this.

Well there no such thing as 'gravitational expansion' and recession velocities exceeding c do not violate Relativity.  So I'm going to have to disagree with you.

Quite wrong as the reason that dark matter is speculated is that there is not enough mass and energy in the universe to fuel not just the expansion of the universe but the acceleration of the expansion velocity.  Now since this velocity is currently measured at 5 times light speed Einstein's theories are laid to waste.  In the wake of this some are speculating that the universe is not real but simulated as physical laws would not govern a simulation, as a simulation would be governed by it's own parameters which as said can be whatever the programmer chooses.

Now I am not claiming this, just showing how ignorant some people are

[Just thinking]

I think the whole idea of a simulated universe is ridiculous as to how could a supercomputer create every atom in existence and place every atom in its place even up my nose why would this computer create sicknesses, diseases and materials throw out the universe that we will never see. I think there is far too much going on and to me that makes it a total reality.

[Europa (OP)]

I think the whole idea of a simulated universe is ridiculous as to how could a supercomputer create every atom in existence and place every atom in its place even up my nose why would this computer create sicknesses, diseases and materials throw out the universe that we will never see. I think there is far too much going on and to me that makes it a total reality.

I suppose in the theory that nothing is actually real, but it just goes to show how frustrated astrophysicist are with the theory of relativity completely failing at a universal scale.  Seems for once we actually agree.

[Just thinking]

I suppose in the theory that nothing is actually real, but it just goes to show how frustrated astrophysicist are with the theory of relativity completely failing at a universal scale.  Seems for once we actually agree.

Well, thank you.

[Origin]

I know this is a waste of time, you'll never listen...

Quite wrong as the reason that dark matter is speculated is that there is not enough mass and energy in the universe to fuel not just the expansion of the universe but the acceleration of the expansion velocity.

That is simply false.  The expansion of the universe was accepted before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy.  The acceleration of the expansion of the universe is due to dark energy not dark matter.

Now since this velocity is currently measured at 5 times light speed Einstein's theories are laid to waste.

I don't know where you got the '5 times' number but that doesn't matter.  There is no prohibition in relativity for the recession velocity of distant galaxies to exceed c as I said.  Relativity says that mass cannot move through space faster than c and the recession velocity is not due to distant galaxies moving through space it is due to the expansion of space between us and the distant galaxies.

Like I said this is falling on deaf ears, so you will of course continue to wallow in your ignorance - c'est la vie.[shrug]

[hamdani yusuf]

It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world

But what is it a simulation of? And why?

Watch the video where Tyson explains himself.  In my opinion the best physicist can not prove that the universe exist because there is 85 percent too little matter to allow for gravitational expansion so they up and created dark matter, but even that fails because new measurements seem to show galaxies moving at 5 times light speed which is impossible under relativity.  So all that said now the loonies in charge are claiming that you are really code in a great big computer, something like the Matrix I suppose but Tyson presents it as reality not fiction.

The video title is "Neil deGrasse Tyson: It's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulated world" with timestamp on 4 Jul 2017.

Neil deGrasse Tyson - like Elon Musk - says it's hard to argue that we aren't living in a simulation, explaining that with the computing power to create worlds - that can create worlds, that then create more worlds - the likelihood that we're living in the "real world" is, at best, slim.

Here is his update of what he believes.

The video title is "Neil deGrasse Tyson Explains the Simulation Hypothesis" with timestamp on 18 Mar 2020.

Neil deGrasse Tyson and comic co-host Chuck Nice are here (or are they?) to investigate if we're living in a simulation. We explore the ever-advancing computer power and how that impacts the simulation hypothesis. Chuck wonders if a simulation universe has anything to do with us not being able to travel at the speed of light. You'll learn about Bayesian statistics. Lastly, Neil tells us how he was ready to embrace the simulation hypothesis until he came across a certain idea that changed his mind.