If you could be the 'God of the Simulation' would you do it?

a reply to: Maverick7

Are we not already the god/participant/observer, in our own simulations?

a reply to: Maverick7

No true scientist would interfere with their experiment in any way, this way they would see their subjects in their true light. Any attempt to change anything whatsoever would render the experiment null and void. Therefore you cannot consider “Evil” as something god has allowed any more than “good”. Both concepts are opposite sides of human nature and to an objective observer would be equally as fascinating.

originally posted by: Maverick7
There's been talk of this reality possibly being a Simulation.

And yet none of those who talk about this will tell me what it's supposedly a simulation of.
Simulation (google dictionary)

imitation of a situation or process.

So what is it an imitation of? And is that at least real (or part of reality)?

I think most people who use this word "simulation" either don't realize the implication that word carries when applied to the realities around us (that reality is not actually real) or like to live in their own fantasy world. Philosophizing and speculating about things that make them feel clever and enlightened, openminded and every other positive label the media and this system of things likes to attach to that way of thinking.

originally posted by: ClovenSky
a reply to: rickymouse

But what if we are? What if we left a major part of ourselves behind and only allowed a small portion of our souls to be projected into this reality. We would have to hadicap ourselves a bit to properly enjoy this reality. We very well could be the creators with enough knowledge that once this reality was set in motion, we were disciplined enough to let it run and see where it ends up.

If that is the case, I would really like to see the menu listing the other realities that could exist alongside this one. Maybe that is where some of our fantasy sci-fi comes from, ethereal memories of previous incarnations on other planes of existence.

If we pass the test of this reality, we may be allowed to join into the other reality. This life is nothing but a training program where we are taught and tested. It may end here if we flunk, but if we make it I do not know what is in store for us. Maybe we are forced to rerun the program if we flunk, till we pass the test.

This could be a program created by a future us, one we are intigrated into as children to get us to be able to actually live peacefully among each other when we pass. In this case, the program would be what we would call god. How the authors apply it in our particular case is relevant to how we are acting.

Is god real, is god actually the program we are in? What if there is no way to ever be real. It doesn't matter, I want to be honest and a decent person, I want to be fair but not a sucker. I am not being this way because I fear god, which I believe exists, I just am trying to comprehend what god really is. Too many discrepancies are in this reality, it is severely flawed, scientific evidence is often being interpreted way to badly to be trusted. Scientific interpretation is influenced by consensus of the time and also by desire and greed.

Linking to at least the local supreme consciousness is helpful, but do not limit it to human minds. The world has it's own consciousness, the local processor of all information stored on this planet, a part of the big program, a part of god.

I am just trying to understand what god might be, I am not nuts that way. I may be a little nuts, but not about this kind of stuff, my present obsession with metabolics and organochemistry is a little nuts.

a reply to: rickymouse

If we are in a simulation, it's the Kobayashi Maru

a reply to: rickymouse

If we are in a simulation, it's the Kobayashi Maru

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Maverick7
There's been talk of this reality possibly being a Simulation.

And yet none of those who talk about this will tell me what it's supposedly a simulation of.
Simulation (google dictionary)

imitation of a situation or process.

So what is it an imitation of? And is that at least real (or part of reality)?

I think most people who use this word "simulation" either don't realize the implication that word carries when applied to the realities around us (that reality is not actually real) or like to live in their own fantasy world. Philosophizing and speculating about things that make them feel clever and enlightened, openminded and every other positive label the media and this system of things likes to attach to that way of thinking.

Could it not be a simulation of a multitude of things?

What is the mirrors reflection, a reflection of?

originally posted by: tovenar
a reply to: rickymouse

If we are in a simulation, it's the Kobayashi Maru

But we don't have any klingons here.

a reply to: rickymouse

That is a really interesting thought process. I wonder what the test could be? Maybe something along the lines of properly or accurately explaining what this reality is and how it operates after our time expires? Our explanations would then be supported by a review of how one lived their life.

Linking to at least the local supreme consciousness is helpful, but do not limit it to human minds. The world has it's own consciousness, the local processor of all information stored on this planet, a part of the big program, a part of god.

Someone else had built a thread on morphic resonance that I didn't really understand at the time but I believe now ties in with this theory. It is great to know others view this reality as something wonderful and try to suck the life out of it. Happy travels my friend.

The first thing I would try to simulate is an honest politician, however I probably wouldn't be able to locate any data to base it on.
a reply to: Maverick7

a reply to: Nothin
Sure, except what 'could be' (the case) is of less interest to me than 'what is' (the case). I'm more of a truth seeker than possibility seeker.

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
...
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

I recon the methodology to acquire or discover knowledge/science and facts/truths/realities about our surroundings, i.e. the scientific method above isn't used a lot on this subforum. Unverified hypotheses, so-called hypotheses (often untestable or presented without a proposed test for verification) and imaginative ideas that tickle the ears of a part of the audience or captivates their attention seem to be more popular around these parts.

2 Timothy 4:3,4

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories* [Greek: mythos; KJV: "myths"].

1 Thessalonians 5:21

Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.

1 Timothy 6:20

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”* [Greek: gnosis]

“A fool will believe anything.”—PROVERBS 14:15, TODAY’S ENGLISH VERSION.
...
How can you protect yourself from the types of people that the Bible calls “profitless talkers” and “deceivers of the mind”? (Titus 1:10) Once you are familiar with some of their tricks, you are in a better position to evaluate any message or information that comes your way. Here are some ways to do this.

Be selective: A completely open mind could be likened to a pipe that lets just anything flow through it—even sewage. No one wants a mind contaminated with poison. Solomon, a king and educator in ancient times, warned: “Anyone inexperienced puts faith in every word, but the shrewd one considers his steps.” (Proverbs 14:15) So we need to be selective. We need to scrutinize whatever is presented to us, deciding what to accept and what to reject.

However, we do not want to be so narrow that we refuse to consider facts that can improve our thinking. How can we find the right balance? By adopting a standard with which to measure new information.
...
Use discernment: Discernment is “acuteness of judgment.” It is “the power or faculty of the mind by which it distinguishes one thing from another.” A person with discernment perceives subtleties of ideas or things and has good judgment.

Using discernment, we will be able to recognize those who are merely using “smooth talk and complimentary speech” in order to “seduce the hearts of guileless ones.” (Romans 16:18) Discernment enables you to discard irrelevant information or misleading facts and distinguish the substance of a matter. But how can you discern when something is misleading?

Put information to the test: “Beloved ones,” said John, a first-century Christian teacher, “do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions.” (1 John 4:1) Some people today are like sponges; they soak up whatever they come across. It is all too easy to absorb whatever is around us.

But it is far better for each individual personally to choose what he will feed his mind. It is said that we are what we eat, and this can apply to food for both the body and the mind. No matter what you are reading or watching or listening to, test to see whether it has propagandistic overtones or is truthful.

Moreover, if we want to be fair-minded, we must be willing to subject our own opinions to continual testing as we take in new information. We must realize that they are, after all, opinions. Their trustworthiness depends on the validity of our facts, on the quality of our reasoning, and on the standards or values that we choose to apply.

Ask questions:...

Source: article in my signature

On the preceding page the following nugget is also shared:

AS MEANS of communicating have expanded—from printing to the telephone, radio, television, and the Internet—the flow of persuasive messages has dramatically accelerated. This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter. Many respond to this pressure by absorbing messages more quickly and accepting them without questioning or analyzing them.
...
Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.
...
Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

And the appeals to pride and plays on our fears of seeming stupid, closedminded, narrowminded, being a know-it-all, arrogant or presumptuous in the acceptance or acknowledgements of facts/truths/certainties or things that are factual/true/absolute/correct, without error/certain* aren't always spelled out like that. *: basically any character attribute or way of thinking that is perceived or painted as negative can be used in this technique, and it can be done very subtly (for example, the notion that you're enlightened or have deeper insight if you take some idea/philosophy seriously and the opposite if you dismiss it as mythology, or if you express some heavy skepticism regarding its merit in discussions about reality or that which is true, that which is the case vs that which is not the case).

Coming back to Isaac Newton and his methodology to "make sure of all things" and discover new facts/truths/realities/certainties (things that are absolute/true/factual and not 'maybe this, or most likely that') about our surroundings:

Isaac Newton's science/scientia/knowledge about reality

I would find the quickest way to recover anything valuable from the simulation, such as conciousness, recover it and end the simulation.

a reply to: whereislogic

Sorry: am not here to acknowledge your concept of truth, nor reality.
That's not what my posts herin were about, nor what the entire thread seems to be about.
-
Can't grasp the pertinence of your reply to my post, nor thow it relates to the
context of the thread, at all.

We don't know "what is": so we wonder.

This is the domain of supposition, wonder, pondering, contemplation, intuition, creativity, instinct, feelings, immagination...
Not everyone enjoys dipping their toes in it, and that's totally fine.

originally posted by: AdKiller
I would find the quickest way to recover anything valuable from the simulation, such as conciousness, recover it and end the simulation.

The Hymn of the Pearl by the apostle Thomas explains exactly that - extracting the pearl from the material confines of egypt.

The savior said, "O blessed Thomas, of course this visible light shines on your behalf - not in order that you remain here, but rather that you might come forth - and whenever all the elect abandon bestiality, then this light will withdraw up to its essence, and its essence will welcome it, since it is a good servant."

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm more of a truth seeker than possibility seeker...
AS MEANS of communicating have expanded—from printing to the telephone, radio, television, and the Internet—the flow of persuasive messages has dramatically accelerated. This communications revolution has led to information overload, as people are inundated by countless messages from every quarter

Yeah give it to us in small doses; coming around door to door with a different edition of Awake each week. Slow indoctrination.

avoidjw.org...

You shall volunteer to preach on a regular basis.
You shall not attend Alcoholics Anonymous
Women shall not pray in the presence of baptized men other than exceptional circumstances.
You shall not join the Boy Scouts.
You shall not join the Girl Guides.

a reply to: Maverick7

No, I don't have much interest in people as it is, I like my dog

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: whereislogic

This is the domain of supposition, wonder, pondering, contemplation, intuition, creativity, instinct, feelings, immagination...
Not everyone enjoys dipping their toes in it, and that's totally fine.

There it is, what I described as "narrowminded, closedminded,... " vs openmindedness. As if dealing with the facts and reality is not 'enjoying dipping one's toes into intuition, pondering, creativity and imagination' (or is incompatible with it). Whereas pure speculation and fantasy is (implied or thought of as such). There are different types and ways of using one's imagination and creativity, you can go all out fantasy or fiction or your imagination can be based on the facts that one is aware of using a rational way of reasoning.

I take headlong dives into "wonder, pondering, contemplation, intuition, creativity, instinct, feelings" and "imagination" but I do not abandon my rationality when doing so.

a reply to: Maverick7

@ If you could be the 'God of the Simulation' would you do it?

Only if the Creator of said simulation requested me to.

I prefer to avoid the God complex.
Observed too many supposeds call themselves gods and yet this small planet is still unstable after their presence somehow faded...

Who's to say we aren't already the Gods of our own Simulation playing it out here on the playground?

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: whereislogic

This is the domain of supposition, wonder, pondering, contemplation, intuition, creativity, instinct, feelings, immagination...
Not everyone enjoys dipping their toes in it, and that's totally fine.

There it is, what I described as "narrowminded, closedminded,... " vs openmindedness. As if dealing with the facts and reality is not 'enjoying dipping one's toes into intuition, pondering, creativity and imagination' (or is incompatible with it). Whereas pure speculation and fantasy is (implied or thought of as such). There are different types and ways of using one's imagination and creativity, you can go all out fantasy or fiction or your imagination can be based on the facts that one is aware of using a rational way of reasoning.

I take headlong dives into "wonder, pondering, contemplation, intuition, creativity, instinct, feelings" and "imagination" but I do not abandon my rationality when doing so.

How you got from: "This is the domain of supposition, wonder, pondering, contemplation, intuition, creativity, instinct, feelings, immagination...
To: " "narrowminded, closedminded,... " vs openmindedness", is beyond any rationality this guy has ever encountered!

So why have you barged-in here, criticizing us for irrationality?
Do you think that those posting in this thread, live-out their entire lives irrationally?

It's ok if you never abandon rationality, but why criticize those who choose to?