Is the Universe itself a computer program?

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
If we are in a computer, the computer sets its own boundries.

So if the universe= computer than that would mean that the universe can divide zero because it made itself. See what I mean. Basically if the universe is computer it can do anything because it is not a common computer. Definetely not windows xp or Mac OSX whatever. Probably like windows 1000000000 or something. Though no one controls the computer that is our universe. It is left alone like a server.

I agree with the fact that it is left alone but not with the fact that it can devide by zero. No logical system can divide by zero, because the result is infinite... infinite is not mesurable value, it cannot be contained in anything in anyway:it's only a concept. If the univers would be infinite, it wouldn't even be extending...

Hi all. This is a theme I've been interested in for quite some time. Nick Bostrom, the director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University has written a famous paper entitled "The Simulation Argument", that deals with this very subject.

There's a wealth of information at the following link that deals with all aspects of the argument, including the computing power required and the philosophical aspects of the argument. It is well worth the read.

www.simulation-argument.com...

Enjoy

our reality is a computer program billions of years ahead of our own. so yeah kinda sorta. we create stuff everyday..if its that easy for us dummys to do think what the possiblilities are with our creator..

Ive also thought this way many times. Since I was 7 I always had this nagging feeling that im being observed through like, a giant two way mirror, and that mirror was the sky. I constantly feel like a muse that is being observed by a group of scientists. I thought I was the only one.

We could all be a part of gods imagination, and us being that same god. All from one being viewing diiferent perspectives in different people/bodys. I dont think there is a G5 running this universe, but a type of "mainframe" if you will based on waves & chaos. But maybe not

My difficulty is that the intuitive side of me says that we really do exist. Metaphysical questions aside though...

Simply to note that the universe can be explained in terms of a computer programme seems to be backwards thinking... A computer is a physical object, performing physical processes. However quickly and small-scale, they are still physical processes going on the chips and circuits. Given that all physical processes in the universe are goverened by the same physical laws it comes as no surprise to me that computers operate according to principles found throughout the universe, the same way as shoemakers, souffles and supernovae do. I am saying that the argument works better the other way round: that computers can only use the same principles as those which govern the universe at large, and therefore to some extent are related in their workings to the workings of nature - just like all things that exist within the universe - and that is why there is a resemblance.

Cheers.

The fact that the univers would be a "hologram" does not mean that we(our soul) don't exist. (there are experiment that found an explanation only like these: for instance, the twin photon).

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
God created everything, not just Heaven. Get the facts straight.

As far as it being a computer program, wouldn't that cause it to have a finite set of possible outcomes? Please, understand that I have limited knowledge of computers, but wouldn't the universe being a computer program severely limit it, and, if that be the case, doesn't it make decisions by us totally futile?

But from what I remember growing up in the church, god has our lives pre-planned out, so that makes our decisions futile too. There's only one choice that will ever happen. Same thing as a computer. Unless, the computer was just set up and let go and not continuously monitered by something.

That would certainly explain, when an atom is 99.999% empty space, you can still see the objects they make. Here is another thought. WOW! Maybe that is why scientists can switch genetic code on and off

If we were computer programs and crud, who's operating the computer, another computer, like multiple Universes/multiple computers?

I doubt it, what we see operates by it's own laws and does what it does without a giant computer brain directing it.
That's not to say that what we see is not the computer itself, those sub-atomic particles that make up an atom, those quarks have ups and downs (up, up,down..down, up, down, etc.) like computers have 1's and 0's. Difference is, the atoms have one more variable, up or down.

Or there is also spin.

No one is controlling us, lol. The computer that we are in (if we are) is not one big sims game . Bascially, as I mentioned before, the computer that contains us is like a server computer, and is left alone.

The computer we are in is like no other, so you can't compare it to the one you are on right now. It would have to be more advanced otherwise it wouldn't make any sense that we are in a windows XP .

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
No one is controlling us, lol. The computer that we are in (if we are) is not one big sims game

. Bascially, as I mentioned before, the computer that contains us is like a server computer, and is left alone.

The computer we are in is like no other, so you can't compare it to the one you are on right now.

But you are comparing it to modern computers. If it's a computer like no other computers then why are you so sure it is one?

Exactly!

Supposing we are not the program in the computer, but we are the computer. One piece observes the other.
Some parts know it can calculate and think and be intelligent, most of the parts just do what they do automatically or be controlled by the parts that calculate and think.
The computer of course being a metaphor of sorts. And gimme a break I just took my first sip of coffee for the day. (this computer, me, ain't fully booted up yet.)

I've come to accept that living inside a computer as a very real possibility. We can test this theory by determining the requirement's such a computer would need for such a simulation to function, and in time, experimentally prove that such a simulation could be built within a computer, by designing a computer to do just what the theory postulates.

While I do accept, I also favor the non-creator reality. This theory also has evidence backing it up. The physics behind the theory, from our POV atleast (if inside a simulation) are very real and definable. The observation's and discoveries we make allow us to build upon another to draw up an evr more accurate theory of how a universe could pop into existence without the need of a creator. This is the theory I hold belief in.

For the sake of argument, I noticed a statement made earlier, get your fact's straight. The notion of a god creator has nothing to back it up. There's nothing experimentally testable, such as in the computer simulation. There's nothing to be used that can be proven. There's no suffient theory with evidence backing up creationism/IDT pre big bang, and the lack of understanding complex interaction's leading to life isn't evidence of a creator initiating evolution on this planet. Biologist's have already shown, with numerous amount's of evidence just exactly how life may have started, on it's own, without the need of a creator. What evidence against this does creationism have? To state creationism/IDT as a fact, is false. It is not a fact any more then big bang or simulation would be facts, but the underlying difference being, big bang and simulation not only have evidence, but can be proven to an extent. If simulation is done by our species, then creationism of the universe alone would then have more of a foothold, but the many other characteristic's of that god would need to be proven along with the creation of that god, and the so called miracles performed by that god would have to be proven to not have been the result of someone else's god. If simulation is done in practice, that alone wouldn't mean it's the correct answer to how our universe came into existance either. Really, we may never know the exact answer and there will be many more theories that could be testable and proven, but religion is not one of them.

But if this was true, you would have to ask yourself how did the computer materialize. Then you get back to the which came first the chicken or the egg. Something has to be first.

www.simulation-argument.com

Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 15-3-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

OK. (lets see if i can maintain my original thought)

given, that there are many good ideas posted so far, (shadowXIX talkin about a giant SIMS game), most are focusing on the wrong part of the real/actual question...

before i get any deeper; I believe in God.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
whp created the Universe? I mean the WHOLE THING. Like I am not talking about planets and crud. I mean the thing that contains the planets and crud.

Using analogies like computers or a system or whatever, lead some astray from as to what actually 'contains' OUR universe. i know i couldn't begin to seriously comprehend what could possibly contain/create/explain it... but thats how i bet an ant would view the sky....(Antz anyone?)
(let it sink in)
or how/what a cell in a body would imagine outside the body (assuming it could imagine... Osmosis Jones)

so yes, for all we know we're an experiment/test/simulation... it's just that we don't know... other than our observations based on reflected photons and different types of, for lack of a better word... sonar(spell check?), and mathematical equations that we belive to be natural law (not that they aren't our laws), only because they've held up to the tests and observations that we are able to carry out/come up with.
(sink in)

i know that this might sound even more implausabe, but i saw on some show on the science channel(pretty sure) talking about super string theory and the multiverse... and at the end they said that it is possible(today, if not done so already... kinda don't remember it all) to create a universe in a lab; and that as it expands it wouldn't 'take up space' in our verse, but would simply create its own!....
i know, just our current understanding... but wow!

so... who knows! any of us could be right. like houdini said, 'We stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us'. we simply have to, ie:progress to understand what we cant can't. (not a typo) think outside the box ..er em... universe.

(i hope i wasn't goin in circles and that i actually got something across other than crazy)
peace.

so. lets hack this computer program and give us Matrix power .

it could be we are in a computer program. who knowes.. maby this computer is a prision for criminals like we have to relive our lives. and therfor we have deisjavo, i dunno where im going with this :S
but like we relive our life to change to not chose the criminal life.. those who dont chose it. get free. and those who did. start over agen,

i may be som wrong in gramma. ppl judge for that before..

so. lets hack this computer program and give us Matrix power .

it could be we are in a computer program. who knowes.. maby this computer is a prision for criminals like we have to relive our lives. and therfor we have deisjavo, i dunno where im going with this :S
but like we relive our life to change to not chose the criminal life.. those who dont chose it. get free. and those who did. start over agen,

i may be som wrong in gramma. ppl judge for that before..

Originally posted by Zep Tepi

There's a wealth of information at the following link that deals with all aspects of the argument, including the computing power required and the philosophical aspects of the argument. It is well worth the read.

www.simulation-argument.com...

Enjoy

Thought I'd reiterate your post, seeing as nobody has noticed it yet. I recently wrote an extensive research paper on Dr. Bostrom's theory...he has quite an argument, even if you choose not to believe it. Which really wouldn't matter, seeing as we would have no way of telling if we were simulated or not.

One of the accompanying articles on the site, concerning methods of how we could detect flaws in the program, I disagree with. It stands to reason that any potential "bugs" in the universe could be patched out and all memory of their existence erased, wouldn't you think?