Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Nick Bostrom, a Physicist and Philosopher, is a Swede and heads the Future of Humanity Project in Oxford University, England. A few years ago, he wrote a rather interesting paper which he called “The Simulation Hypothesis”. This produced a lot of animated discussion and controversy in the scientific world, and significantly won over many eminent proponents.
He posited three questions at the beginning of his paper, and then based the rest of his paper on the most likely answers:
1. The Human Race never ever thinks of Simulations. This is obviously False, since we are already seeing simulations of many kinds on computers , some with remarkable clarity and accuracy.
2. The Human Race destroys itself before it can produce any significant simulations. The jury is still out on this one. However like DF, we are teetering on the edge of extinction, but we appear to be surviving.
3. If one comes to the conclusion that the above two premises are false, then according to Nick Bostrom, it is a near certainty that we, the Human Race of today, and the Universe that we inhabit, are a Computer simulation!!
The power of computers increase exponentially every few years. Imagine a human civilization 20 or 30 thousand years, or a few million years from now. They would have the power to produce totally lifelike simulations, completely indistinguishable from the real thing! Something like us!
Why produce such a simulated reality? According to Bostrom, one reason could be to recreate their own long lost ancestors.
The world around us appears to be getting madder by the day. Bewildering things happen for no rhyme or reason.Tsunamis, earthquakes, wars, religious and racial intolerance, and violenc, and terrible diseases afflicting perfectly good people who are just struck one day and gone before you can figure out what they had or why.
Humans have tried very hard to explain it all. Religions talk of an all powerful and benevolent god, but then cannot explain all the “badness”, and blame it all on the devil! Could a devil be as powerful as god?
Very hard to prove or disprove, the Hypothesis explains almost everything happening around us. It becomes clear if we consider the Simulators playing their game; perhaps in their time no longer than 10 or 20 minutes for the whole Universe, but a lifetime to us. It is thought that those that the Simulators find interesting amongst us, they might even recreate in another later Simulation! A ray of hope here for Dubai Forummers?
The pointers are hard to ignore!
Could this, finally, be an explanation of God that humanity has been in search of for so long? A not so benevolent being, after all, but probably just a nerdy teenager??

I think there's a glitch in the system.

I seem to recall an eerily similar thread:
dubai-chat/the-universe-and-life-computer-simulation-t45389.html



My response hasn't changed. But still an interesting theory.

Cheers,
Shafique

No glitch there Shaf. It was deliberate.
Considering the amount of repetitiveness about religion swirling around on DF, on a daily and hourly basis, I wanted to add a little counterbalance from my side. To add variety, if nothing else, otherwise it gets so dull reading the same things over and over.
I may have repeated myself once in the year, which is not so bad!
However, as you said, the theory is interesting, and perhaps deserves a wider reading.

I guessed as much zonker - and as I say, I agree with you that it is an interesting theory.

I've often used the argument that I consider God's power within the universe to be analogous to the programmer of a sim game - where the programmer has put in certain rules and chooses not to break those rules, but can intervene within the rules. God is like the programmer who has let the programme run so knows what will happen, but the individual elements have AI and are responsible for their choices.

It's a useful analogy when answering the old question 'can God make a rock so heave He can't lift it?' - well, can a programmer make a rock in the sim so heavy he can't lift it? Well, the programmer does not exist physically in the programme and is not bound by the 'physics' he programmed into the sim. He can create characters within it, influence weather etc and can make situations happen - but he has programmed the 'sentient' beings within to be able to make choices.

Cheers,
Shafique

I guessed as much zonker

Of course you did.

shafique wrote:
It's a useful analogy when answering the old question 'can God make a rock so heave He can't lift it?' - well, can a programmer make a rock in the sim so heavy he can't lift it? Well, the programmer does not exist physically in the programme and is not bound by the 'physics' he programmed into the sim. He can create characters within it, influence weather etc and can make situations happen - but he has programmed the 'sentient' beings within to be able to make choices.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, I believe in Science and the Scientific method. Thats not a religion, but the search for the truth. Science explores avenues, empirically, makes mistakes and corrects itself. This has happened thousands of times over the past century or so. This is NOT the case with Religion; ANY religion,which is pure and rigid dogma. In that sense, the word God to me looks quite corrupted. A great all-powerful being, angry, but benevolent, sitting up there somewhere in the sky watching our every deed and people fighting in his name (its not a HER) amongst themselves. And yet, most of the time its bad things happening on the Planet. There is a lot of misery out there. And the explanation for that has been that other equally powerful being with a pointy tale and ears called the Devil. Hard for any one to swallow with any modicum of intelligence.
However, with the Simulators, everything clicks into place! And what a nasty lot I must say!
Of course, the next logical question is : who created the Simulators? There must have been an original Human race somewhere out there!

I also believe in science and the scientific method. I believe in rationality and logic.

If you were a sim in the simulation - would you insist that the rules you see around you came into being at the big-boot-up of the programme and that there is no programmer, or would you side with those who followed the rules of conduct that the programmer gave to the 'priestly' cast?

Professor Abdus Salam was a nobel prize winner for Physics, and gave this speech about Islam and science:
http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/st ... ience.html

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I also believe in science and the scientific method. I believe in rationality and logic......


Cheers,
Shafique

Thats the problem Shaf. How do you reconcile religion with those qualities of logic and rationality you have mentioned? I know Prof Salam who was a Nuclear Physicist and a Nobel Laureate; he did great work on the atom or something I dont remember now, but does that make him an authority on Agriculture, say?
So, for me the bottom line is that religion is something personal. A leap of faith.
Coming from a Muslim background, I find too many Muslims wear their religion on their sleeve! It was very off putting to me and drove me away from all religions! I am quite sure it does the same for many others.
Peace!

I have yet to find a disconnect between rationality, logic and a belief that there is a creator of the Universe who can communicate with His creations, and does reveal His guidelines for His creations.

I'd say Prof Abdus Salam knew more than me about Agriculture and knew more about the fundamental forces of Physics than all of us here.

Was there anything specific about the Abdus Salam speech that you disagreed with?

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, using scientific method , rationality and logic, nobody has so far been able to prove that there is a creator of the Universe! That discovery would be BIG News one way or the other. All that we have are the religious books, ancient texts talking about god. Leave alone a creator that has been communicating with his creations! You have to suspend all logic and rationality in order to believe that; and I know that there are people, many many people, who manage to do just that.
I am well aware that the good Professor knew a lot more than any of us about all those things that you have mentioned, but was he able to prove scientifically, the existence of a creator? No. Or else we would have heard of it
I haven't read his speech yet, but I will get around to it I assure you. I feel I have heard it all before!

I'd be very interested in hearing your views after you've read the speech and discussing any specific points raised in it that you disagree with.

The scientific method hasn't proven many theories yet or uncovered the real nature of many aspects of the universe. We have some good models, but they don't explain everything we can observe.

For example, the nature of gravity is one that we're not completely sure about - is it a function of a distortion of time/space, or is there another explanation of how it can appear to travel faster than light? Does dark matter actually exist? How about Higgs-bosun - is it real? M-theory is another one - and it's a brave person that thinks we'll ever get a theory to describe turbulence in fluid dynamics..

And those are things we have some hope of observing. When it comes to things that are more remote - such as the mind, or what exactly is a 'life force' that makes some collections of molecules be 'alive' rather than not-alive.. (call it a soul, if you like). We don't know what the mind is or what a soul is - can't see it, but can see the effects.

Now, the theory of God is that He exists outside the universe - so no use looking for Him within it, but only for the signs of His interactions. A bit like the programmer of the sim programme. There's a valid theory that a creator exists and from that theory stems experiments we can carry out. We can't measure a soul or weigh a mind, so we have no chance of measuring God. But the same principles apply - and I don't think it is crazy to believe in a mind, soul or God.

It is the alternative that I think requires a lot of faith - because to believe in there not being a creator requires a belief in an infinitely small probabilty that we all came to being by chance. It sure could happen, but it is so remote that I don't have enough faith to believe that theory - I prefer to believe that there is a creator.

As I linked to above - my favourite theory of creation is that we were all created 5 mins ago with ready made memories. That's a theory that can't be disproven. Doesn't make it real or the most likely theory though.

Cheers,
Shafique

And I thought you said you were a believer in the Scientific Method
I am a great believer in it. I dont think there is any other way of discovering the truth. However, it is painstaking and at times, after years of research, you might find that you were on the wrong tract, and then you have to retrace your steps.
The state of current human knowledge is indeed scant. We know approximately 1% of (matter) that is out there in the Universe, after hundreds of years of scientific empirical research. 99% is unknown.That is why it is called Dark Matter. We know it is there because of the effects it produces on the known matter. We just dont know yet what it is.
We have barely scratched the surface.
Faced with this astounding reality, we can adopt one of two ways: either to continue with the Scientific Method, to uncover the truth bit by bit, or adopt what our ancestors did in the dark ages of pre-history i.e indulge in fantasies and guess work. Everything was worshipped as god, from the wind and the sun and the moon to snakes and other animals.They too believed they were absolutely right!
Of course, science uses empirical methods, and so it will only acknowledge something when it is proven to exist by independent observers. There might well be a creator, but if its existence cannot be proven then speaking scientifically it does not exist.
You have mentioned the Higgs boson, gravity, the M or Membranes theory etc. and that is just how science works. Great minds are working on all this and things are being clarified.
Of course, one can "believe" in anything! But then belief is an uncertain science. You always talk of "belief" where there is uncertainty: no one ever says I beleive that 2+3 makes five, because this is a certainty, but for god or religion you will always say "I believe" in a god or such a religion. Because you are not certain.
Just as you can never be certain whether somebody really loves you or not
As for the soul, again there is no scientific evidence for its existence, I am afraid.
There is a human "consciousness" which is the sum of all the sensory inputs that our brain perceives and makes us aware of all that goes on around us. Death puts an end to all that.
The only hope is if the Simulators liked our character enough, they might recreate us in another simulation Keep your fingers crossed.

2+3 could also equal 10.

(There are I0 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't)

But seriously, given that 99% of the knowledge is unknown, I find it odd to not have a view on the 99% of the yet to be proven/discovered aspects of knowledge. Indeed, having a view is part of the scientific method - it spurs experimentation.

You have a theory about what conciousness is, but its a theory. I subscribe to a theory that says there are elements of the universe that are beyond our current capabilities of measurement AND that there exists even more ethereal 'forces' that are beyond the physical universe.

I cannot prove to you with a ruler or tape measure that waves exist around us and can carry pictures and sounds, but I have experienced the effect of these data-carrying waves.

The more we study science, the more we realise how little we know - I suspect that the 99% unknown is probably too low a figure. I mean, we only have our 5 senses after all.

But - I'm not clear whether you're an agnostic or an atheist. I can understand an agnostic waiting for proof, but as I said, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist - they've chosen to believe that there is no god. It is still a belief, after all.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:2+3 could also equal 10.

How?

2+3 in dec, hex, and oct is 5. In binairy 10+11=101

shafique wrote:2+3 could also equal 10.

(There are I0 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't)

But seriously, given that 99% of the knowledge is unknown, I find it odd to not have a view on the 99% of the yet to be proven/discovered aspects of knowledge. Indeed, having a view is part of the scientific method - it spurs experimentation.

You have a theory about what conciousness is, but its a theory. I subscribe to a theory that says there are elements of the universe that are beyond our current capabilities of measurement AND that there exists even more ethereal 'forces' that are beyond the physical universe.

I cannot prove to you with a ruler or tape measure that waves exist around us and can carry pictures and sounds, but I have experienced the effect of these data-carrying waves.

The more we study science, the more we realise how little we know - I suspect that the 99% unknown is probably too low a figure. I mean, we only have our 5 senses after all.

But - I'm not clear whether you're an agnostic or an atheist. I can understand an agnostic waiting for proof, but as I said, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist - they've chosen to believe that there is no god. It is still a belief, after all.

Cheers,
Shafique

I dont really like categorizing people Shaf, unless they insist on it! Words like "agnostic" and "atheist", like the word "god", have been bandied about so much that I find they are corrupted. But if you like a label, then consider me an agnostic.
I agree with you that humans are designed to know only a fraction of what is really "out there". However, data carrying waves, as you call them, can be proven by Science to be there, although not exactly by using the conventional ruler and tape measure. There are other means of verifying them accurately and exactly.
Scientifically speaking, having an idea in your mind (what you call a "theory") is the first step in any endeavor, be it buying a house or proving the existence of the Simulators. Or god. The next steps become harder as you try to collect the evidence in order to prove your theory. If you do proper scientific research, you can present your idea as an hypothesis, as Prof Bostrom has done, for serious academic discussion.
And as FD has pointed out, in my book, 2+3 will always make 5

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:2+3 could also equal 10.

How?

2+3 in dec, hex, and oct is 5. In binairy 10+11=101

Think outside the box FD - between hex and binary there are other bases.

Zonker - to me too, 2 + 3 equals 5, but others may not live in a base 10 world.

But back to the main issue - I have no issue with other people's beliefs - and agnosticism is a rational belief, as is atheism. But so too is religion I'd argue - all three have underlying assumptions, and ultimately is a choice of 'beliefs' IMO.

Let's revisit after you've read Salam.

Cheers,
Shafique

zonker wrote:The only hope is if the Simulators liked our character enough, they might recreate us in another simulation Keep your fingers crossed.

What if there is a separate simulation of paradise and the sum of all information that is our consciousness is automatically moved to it after death in this simulation?

shafique wrote:2+3 could also equal 10

No. Not in this universe. If you ignore the form and consider the substance behind the symbols 2+3 = 5

zonker wrote:humans are designed to know only a fraction of what is really "out there"

Designed by whom?

2+3 can indeed equal 10 - in this universe.

1 + 1 = 10 (for example)

1+ 2 = 10 also

(Answer - do not think in base 10, decimal system - the first is in base 4, the second is binary/base 2, and the third is base 3. Binary is used in all computers, Hex is also commonly used - 10 is only 'ten' in base 10 - it is 2 in base two and 5 in base 4)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique, You are playing with the form - the symbols, and offer different meaning for those symbols.
I was talking about the substance behind the symbols. 2 apples + 3 apples = 5 apples. You can not change this.
I am using the decimal system just for you to be able to imagine how many apples I mean.
I could as well do it in binary 10 apples + 11 apples = 101 apples but the substance does not change, the number of physical apples will still be the same.

shafique wrote:2+3 could also equal 10.

(There are I0 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't)

But seriously, given that 99% of the knowledge is unknown, I find it odd to not have a view on the 99% of the yet to be proven/discovered aspects of knowledge. Indeed, having a view is part of the scientific method - it spurs experimentation.

Andy, my comment was mathematically correct (and indeed was using symbols) - but was a light hearted diversion from the main discussion - the smiley and the statement in brackets immediately after this - and indeed the 'but seriously..' were meant to highlight this.

The serious point is also that we should test our theories - sometimes what we believe as absolute truths based on our experiences prove not to be absolute, and there are unforeseen subtleties or indeed exceptions which seem illogical. In this case the assumption in my example and joke shows that the underlying assumption that symbols are in a decimal system and not binary or base 5 may not always hold.

Cheers,
Shafique

Andyba wrote:Designed by whom?

Well, I think that means the Human design.
Its an interesting question as to who designed it all. This is a question no scientist in the recent past would have entertained for fear of being ridiculed! Now, it has become a question that is increasingly being asked in scientific circles.
I came across this rather intriguing and stimulating program by some eminent scientists, Britain's Sir Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal since 1995, being one of them.
I posted it in the High Tech Section, but I believe it may have been missed there.
For anyone interested in such things, this is of very fundamental importance
I was fascinated by Mathematician John Conways game of Life. How the game seems to come alive with a few rules. The Laws of Nature seem to play the same role in the Universe, giving direction to everything, including evolution and ultimately human intelligence and beyond.