[Bored chemist]

God is a scientific necessity

Which one?
There are thousands of the buggers.

[Europa (OP)]

God is a scientific necessity

Which one?
There are thousands of the buggers.

Any one or more of them.  See the name is not important whether it be God, Yahweh or Allah.  The name is not important what is important is that DNA can not be shown to create itself in Darwin's magical pond. 

[Bored chemist]

what is important is that DNA can not be shown to create itself in Darwin's magical pond. 

So, you are saying that the important thing is that we can't do an experiment that started before we knew what the experiment was about.
That is absurd.

Stop being Europa.

[Bored chemist]

Any one or more of them.

Ok, Let's go with Ares
"When Ares does appear in myths, He typically faces humiliation"
from wiki.

Can you show the proof that He exists?

[hamdani yusuf]

The name is not important what is important is that DNA can not be shown to create itself in Darwin's magical pond.

What did god create DNA from?
Was it created from nothing?
Was it created from pure energy?
Was it created from fundamental particles in a single step?
Was it created from simpler molecules in many consecutive  steps?

[puppypower]

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

If you plug the speed of light into the three equations for the theory of Special Relativity, mass no longer exists and space-time becomes discontinuous. The simulation, called our material and inertial universe, breaks down. This brings us back to the original program from which this simulation, called our universe, began.

At the speed of light, space and time as we know it, are no longer connected as space-time. One can now move in time without the constraints of space and/or move in space without the constraints of time. This matrix allows infinite possibilities in terms of simulation. Space-time and mass set very specific limits within the infinite matrix of simulation. 

If we could move in time without space limitation and move in space without time limitations we get a situation of infinite possibilities, similar to consciousness and the human imagination. The imagination can pretend/simulate things that are not possible in physical reality, due to the constraints of space-time and mass. The imagination can ignore these and use the larger simulation matrix.

I can fly to the sun, sun bath in its core, and get a good tan, in less than a second in my imagination. This would violate all the laws of physics connected to space-time and mass. But it can be simulated in the imagination; fantasy simulation. It would require time and space not be connected, except in unique ways that make this specific simulation possible; new laws of physics would apply that allow this. 

Alternately, to develop a simulation of our current universe, from this matrix of infinite possibilities, one would need to place limits on these infinite possibilities, and make it finite, but in a specific way. For example, if I had a building simulation program, I would set limits by clicking on bridge simulations, so I can ignore all other building considerations that are possible with the program, but not needed. I have built the BB from scratch in other posts.

Interestingly, if we could move in time without the constraint of space we would know everything everywhere at any point in time, simultaneously. This is traditionally called omniscience. If we could move in space without the constraint of time we would be omnipresent. This matrix has been known from ancient times, and was called God.

Science appears to have circled back to its roots. I got there a little bit ahead of the curve all without assess to space-time resources. I clicked on others forms of simulation and used my imagination to get there from the servant entrance. It is good to see others catching up.

[Origin]

The imagination can pretend/simulate things that are not possible in physical reality

Yes, I know, like in your imagination your posts make sense.

[alancalverd]

If the universe is a simulation, what is it a simulation of? And does that simulation include a simulation of itself?

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

If the universe is a simulation, what is it a simulation of? And does that simulation include a simulation of itself?

   This thread has been moved around the forum and related posts are spread all over the place.  I'm completely lost about what the current state of the discussion is.  However, I'm willing to try and answer the question anyway.  I mean, why not?

    The simulation argument is generally attributed to Nick Bostrom.  It was presented as a Philosophy paper in about 2003.

   The version that Tyson has discussed is loosely based on this.

   In Nick Bostrom's original version it was implied that there was an original universe where computer technology has been developed.  It was then thought that there would be interest in history, ancestry and running scientific simulations.  As a result of this, some simulations would be constructed.  There then seems to be a few more assumptions made.  For example, that computer power develops at a rate similar to that we observe today.  People may have heard of Moore's law, which implies exponential development of computational power - however an exact version of this is not really required.  Anyway, the main hypothesis of the original paper is that there would be a lot of these simulations running.  These are basically simulations of the original universe at earlier times or under specific situations that the original scientists or computer programmers wanted to study.    Anyway, there should be a lot of these and eventually the entities (people) in those simulations develop their own computer technology and run their own simulations.
    Based on a raft of assumptions, Nick Bostrom calculates the probability of various things.

What is it a simulation of?      Something based on the original universe (which for the sake of argument could be considered as the real one).
Does it include a simulation of itself?    Sometimes.  Left to run long enough and under the right conditions, the entities in the simulation could run their own simulations on their own computer technology.   However, there may be some simulations where the situation is slightly different, for example where an intelligent species annihilates itself before creating their own simulations etc.    Based on the assumptions of the original paper, similar to evolution as understood in the Life Sciences,  simulations that terminate will not reproduce and will therefore be finite in number.  Meanwhile, those that do or will ultimately develop their own simulations will vastly outnumber the others.
What does it all mean?   Open to debate.  The general idea is that we are most likely to be in a simulation and the originators of that simulation were themselves in a simulation   and....etc. etc.   there could be a long chain of simulations that created more simulations.   Like the idea of the world being supported on a turtle who in turn stands on a turtle, before you ask what that turtle stands on, someone will tell you "it's turtles all the way down".

    It's been several years since I looked at Nick Bostrom's paper, so I may have misrepresented quite a lot of it.  I don't suppose that will matter.  This is now in the new theories section anyway.

Best wishes to everyone.

[Origin]

The simulation argument is generally attributed to Nick Bostrom.  It was presented as a Philosophy paper in about 2003.

I can see where this is a fun philosophy question, I fail to see how this is physics.
Maybe the universe is a simulation.    Maybe God created  the universe.  There is no evidence of either of those.

[alancalverd]

It was presented as a Philosophy paper

GIGO as usual, then.

[Eternal Student]

Hi alanaclaverd and origin.

    Please don't base your opinions entirely on my synopsis.  As I mentioned, it has been a while since I looked at this.
The original paper seems to be available here:
https://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
  It's about three pages ignoring references, cover pages etc.  I wouldn't want to put the paper in a bad light unfairly.

Here's some of the abstract:
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

   None the less, I tend to agree with the spirit of what you've both said.  It could change what you think the universe and the nature of reality is - but it does not necessarily change how it works.  Physics still seems to be there for discovery.

   I think it became of interest to Physicist's for two reasons:
(i)  It uses some Mathematics (probability) to obtain a conclusion. 
(ii)  Pop. Sci.  has wanted to know the philosophy behind the science.  Also films like "the Matrix" were quite popular back then.

   I'm not sure why Neil deGrasse Tyson seems to be discussing the idea currently.  Personally, I think there are better discussions by Robin Ince and Brian Cox in the book  (originally a radio show) called "The infinite Monkey cage".  A few celebrities like Elon Musk mention the idea from time to time and apparently he's popular at the moment.  A few other people link this simulation argument with other theories like the "Fermi paradox" and the idea of a "great filter" that may lie in front of us.

    On the positive side.  There is no need to be too rigid in trying to draw any line that separates any one field from any other.  This paper crosses many fields like computer science, philosophy, physics and mathematics.  That's not a bad thing.

Best wishes to everyone.

[Halc]

The original paper

is by Bostrom, who is actually talking about the simulation argument. Bostrom is referenced by Tyson who seems to completely misunderstand the paper and is instead proposing a virtual reality argument. The evidence for and against is completely different for the two and it is very important to understand the difference.
A simulation is autonomous and any system (human) simulated would be under its own control.
A VR is an artificial steam of sensory data sent to a non-simulated consciousness, much like a video game. Any human thus simulated would not be under its own control, but would rather simply be an avatar for the offsite consciousness. Bostrom is not talking about a VR setup, but at times he makes mistakes that only apply to VR.

Here's some of [Bostrom's] abstract:
This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage

'Posthuman' isn't defined anywhere in the paper. What does that mean? We'll call ourselves human until we isolate groups of us long enough that said groups evolve separately into incompatible species. It doesn't mean 'running these simulations' because option 2 talks about non-simulating post-humans. The argument seems to assume that those running the simulation (the 'god') are (or were) human, and more in particular, exist in a realm with similar geometry and physics to that which we know here, something I find less than probable.

If this proposition is asserted to be 'very likely', then it seems that it is very likely that we're not thus simulated since this required state of 'posthuman' is not likely to be achieved.

(3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

It seems that our universe is already a mathematical construct, and a rather simple one at that where the same physics works everywhere. I'm not sure how instantiation on a different plane of a given set of physics rules is any different than the original.  Alan seems to cut to the chase:

If the universe is a simulation, what is it a simulation of?

Indeed. If I am perfectly simulated, how is myself and the thing simulated not the same thing? Why is instantiation necessary for either case? A perfect description of me that leads to the perfect simulation is sufficient for all states to be defined, and thus no hardware at all is necessary for those conscious states to be defined (assuming non-avatar consciousness). Bostrom totally misses this point since he goes on about processor speed, when even the slowest wooden touring machine would suffice.

And does that simulation include a simulation of itself?

The simulation obviously can either simulate lower technology, or just fake the results, as Bostrom suggests. Hence the old joke: Instead of buying a faster computer, just use your existing one to simulate the faster one.

Pop. Sci.  has wanted to know the philosophy behind the science.  Also films like "the Matrix" were quite popular back then.

Most pop stories (Matrix in particular) are VR, not simulation. Bostrom correctly makes no reference to such VR scenarios.

A few other people link this simulation argument with other theories like the "Fermi paradox" and the idea of a "great filter" that may lie in front of us.

Those topics refer to the first possibility: why we don't ever get to this 'posthuman' stage, whatever that is.

[Eternal Student]

Hi everyone and thanks Halc.

    I thought I'd make it clear, that this wasn't presented by me as a discussion topic originally.

   On the positive side, you (Halc) have made a reasonable summary of the situation.  The sad thing is it doesn't actually sound much better the way you summarised it.

   The term "posthuman" has been discussed by Bostrom in another one of his papers (but I haven't done much more than glance at it for the definition of posthuman).  I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else.  It seems to propose that a "posthuman" state is one where a significant augmentation of at least one ability held by current day human beings is possible (e.g. long and healthy life   or  an increase in reasoning and memory ability  etc.).
    Meanwhile, in one of the first uses of the term in the current paper (section III of "Are you living in a simulation") it qualifies the term as follows: 
(.......)  a “posthuman” stage of civilization, where humankind has acquired most of the technological capabilities that one can currently show to be consistent with physical laws and with material and energy constraints.
    Let's say there's only a little ambiguity in that definition.  Meanwhile, I had always assumed it to mean one of the following:
(i)  A state of civilization significantly after the current time. 
or  (ii)  The point at which a consciousness can be implemented on what Bostrom refers to as a non-biological substrate,  i.e. in computer technology or software running on suitable hardware.
- - - - - - - -
   It's easier to criticise than to create.  Let's admit that Bostrom presented an interesting idea and was also bold enough to work on something only mentioned in science fiction up to that point and build it into something formally presented as an academic paper.

Best wishes to everyone.

[Zer0]

Mario gets self aware & conscious n grows a conscience.

" Can these dumb Owls & Ducks be a programmed simulation? "
Not Possible...8 bits all there is to the Universe.

What if Our universe was a screensaver running on some whizy kidz pc...wat if!

Prof Neil's belief of a Creator does Not make him Religious.
He's only a Believer.

Folks say their Unicorn is the Mightiest, Strongest & Only One True Unicorn.

It's just the Unicorn shape that's common...but all different colors.

If i Believe in a Neon Green Unicorn...& U believe in a Pearl White Unicorn...We both are irreligious fools for each other.

& Tyson is referring to a chrome plated metallic fire spitting dragon bot.

Must Thank the Heavens that Scientists aren't as divided n engrossed in hatred willing to blow themselves up for their beliefs.

PS - They do Unfortunately get blown away, but not for conversions sake or heavenly abodes or other goodie goodie stuff up there.