The Testable Deistic God

[Boerseun]

Interesting, though. Imagine for a second that there was indeed a way to prove it. And it is finally proven that we merely exist in a machine. What would the repercussions of it be? Would all the fundamental Moslems, Christians, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, Episcopalians, Reformists, Scientologists, Bhuddists, Shintoists, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and every member of every other religion/cult on this (simulated) blue ball all drop their mantras and all of a sudden unite in singing "Don't Switch Off The Machine"?

 

I wonder if it could be proven as a matter of fact that everything on Earth is a mere simulation, what the social impact would be? Good fodder for a new thread, if not a sci-fi novel, for that matter...

[Turtle]

Interesting, though. Imagine for a second that there was indeed a way to prove it. And it is finally proven that we merely exist in a machine. What would the repercussions of it be? Would all the fundamental Moslems, Christians, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, Episcopalians, Reformists, Scientologists, Bhuddists, Shintoists, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and every member of every other religion/cult on this (simulated) blue ball all drop their mantras and all of a sudden unite in singing "Don't Switch Off The Machine"?

 

I wonder if it could be proven as a matter of fact that everything on Earth is a mere simulation, what the social impact would be? Good fodder for a new thread, if not a sci-fi novel, for that matter...

 

I simply have to disagree as to such speculations being interesting. I find it boring if not useless and I long ago gave up reading science fiction by the same causes. As I intimated earlier you would get as much benefit were you to repeatedly bash your head against a wall. Better to apply one's mind to things with some real promise of success in the short time one has than waste that time in futile pursuits.

[phillip1882]

i believe that we are controling the world around us with our thoughts words and deeds.

we are all God in this sence.

but we are also not God in the sence that we can't limit eachother's potentail.

let me explain some events that ive seen, and you decide for your self who we are and what we represent.

have you ever played calvin ball?

i played with people who seemed to have played it for years on end.

they controled their voice with perfect precision, they rewarded me the same way i rewarded them, when i gave them encourge ment, they gave it back to me. but the rules under which they were playing shifted often.

out of bounds was sometimes leagal, sometimes illegal. sometimes when i lifted my hat they thought they commited a penalty, other times no.

when i said GOOD JOB everyone, thats what they strived for.

it was a very bizzare experance. i think we are all playing calvin ball with eachother without realizing it.

[Turtle]

i believe that we are controling the world around us with our thoughts words and deeds.

we are all God in this sence.

but we are also not God in the sence that we can't limit eachother's potentail.

let me explain some events that ive seen, and you decide for your self who we are and what we represent.

have you ever played calvin ball?

i played with people who seemed to have played it for years on end.

they controled their voice with perfect precision, they rewarded me the same way i rewarded them, when i gave them encourge ment, they gave it back to me. but the rules under which they were playing shifted often.

out of bounds was sometimes leagal, sometimes illegal. sometimes when i lifted my hat they thought they commited a penalty, other times no.

when i said GOOD JOB everyone, thats what they strived for.

it was a very bizzare experance. i think we are all playing calvin ball with eachother without realizing it.

 

So again, since we can't and/or don't know such things, it is a monumental and futile waste of time to think about them. Don't make it a sadder story by not coming to that realization until you are on your deathbed or never at all.

[Moontanman]

Crusty old turtle is correct, blind speculation is meaningless...

[Turtle]

Crusty old turtle is correct, blind speculation is meaningless...

 

Thank you. :bow_flowers: As Shakespeare said, 'if thou hath not crust, thou hath not bread'. I would go even further and say that partially sighted speculation is also meaningless. To quote a smart Alex Pope, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.'

[Turtle]

Allow me to get my crust on snax without further provocation. ;)

 

Diety being a synonym for god and both deity and god being supernatural and so above testing, the title writ clear reads The Testable Untestable Untestable. With all due respect that is rubbish compounded. :)

[Boerseun]

Well, now...

 

Turtle, Turtle, Turtle...

 

Before Newton applied his brain to gravity, people had a very different take on it. And before Einstein took it a few steps further, people were stuck in the Newtonian paradigm. In each and every instance, they could simply not see any way forward as to a better understanding of gravity. Except Einstein, of course. I suppose the rest of the world simply would have pasted their versions of head-bashing emoticons on their letters to each other, telling their colleagues to 'stop wasting their time' with 'unprovables', like gravity.

 

The only reason that I'm of the opinion that this sort of speculation has absolutely no proof for it or against it, is because I know that my knowledge is limited - and in MY mind, there is simply no proof. Maybe I lack exposure to some cryptic corner of science and knowledge that might provide a key to opening this door. But my lacking in knowledge is not to say that there is no Einstein-like supergenius out there who can think of some angle for attacking the problem.

 

So, what to do? Put my foot down with a thud and say 'people, you're wasting your time, stop this insanity and get back to work!', or, if I'm dead-set against it, should I not rather simply AVOID this particular thread that's pissing me off so badly?

 

The best property an individual can have for science to proceed, is, in the very first instance, imagination. And any effort to stomp imagination out in any form is merely the hallmark of assholes throughout the known universe.

[sunshaker]

We all have our own beliefs, I believe our universe to be an electron, which means we are made of universes, Which means we all exist within everything and everything exists within us, We are multi-universal entities, without a beginning or an end, We are in all sense gods, I believe everything we do as an effect upon the whole,

Perhaps our experiments with splitting atoms and cerns crashing together particles as resulted in the universe we now see. Similar to the grandfather paradox. We are our own creators.

[Turtle]

Well, now...

 

Turtle, Turtle, Turtle...

 

Before Newton applied his brain to gravity, people had a very different take on it. And before Einstein took it a few steps further, people were stuck in the Newtonian paradigm. In each and every instance, they could simply not see any way forward as to a better understanding of gravity. Except Einstein, of course. I suppose the rest of the world simply would have pasted their versions of head-bashing emoticons on their letters to each other, telling their colleagues to 'stop wasting their time' with 'unprovables', like gravity.

 

The only reason that I'm of the opinion that this sort of speculation has absolutely no proof for it or against it, is because I know that my knowledge is limited - and in MY mind, there is simply no proof. Maybe I lack exposure to some cryptic corner of science and knowledge that might provide a key to opening this door. But my lacking in knowledge is not to say that there is no Einstein-like supergenius out there who can think of some angle for attacking the problem.

 

So, what to do? Put my foot down with a thud and say 'people, you're wasting your time, stop this insanity and get back to work!', or, if I'm dead-set against it, should I not rather simply AVOID this particular thread that's pissing me off so badly?

 

The best property an individual can have for science to proceed, is, in the very first instance, imagination. And any effort to stomp imagination out in any form is merely the hallmark of assholes throughout the known universe.

 

:lol: You can waste your time any way you want. If you're implying that I disapprove of or lack creativity, you haven't been paying attention the last 8 or so years. Regardless, a supernatural thingy is by definition outside of science so there can be no scientific proof or logical anal-ysis of said thingy.

 

As to my avoiding the thread. Clearly I think it's predicated on tommy-rot, but I'm just trying to put a little breath of life into this otherwise dying simulation of a forum. I was -and remain- genuinely glad to hear from you again old friend.

[cal]

This got more responses than I thought it would, but I guess that's always wrong to think when implicating religion lol. I've learned my lesson and that being said I'd like to address the good points that have been made as well as the bad ones.

 

It was noted that anyone running the software could easily intervene in the run-time environment and change things in what we perceived to be an un-interuptible bubble. There's nothing stopping the software operator from printing "you're my electricity bill this month, show some respect" across the sky. On the other hand, it might be quite wise to never interfere once the run-time has started, much like running an advanced sims game would provide interesting results if you never intervened but instead waited and watched to see how they tested their universe for it's limits. However, on the points made between those two arguments, regardless if the "god" intervened, at some point, after a certain level of intellect and empirical testing has been reached by the Sims, they will be able to draw objective conclusions about their universe, even if those objectives only apply to their universe. They will eventually find out that their universe could not have been created with the limited and inconsistent properties it has without some external factor- virtual run-time environments are too small. Our universe however does not need an outside factor to have existed. Let's say we ran the software for our universe and used it on the Sims. Only then, after using software that dynamically manufactures a new entire universe every time, can they argue that there need be no outside factor. I hope you see where I'm going with this one.

 

On to the topic of definitively proving or disproving dynamic universe software: I am not willing to google things for other people, but I will tell you that there are for sure several teams working on testing for a specific kind of radiation that would only exist in a simulated environment. I know one of the teams is German. Now that you have your keywords, let google be your friend.

 

Turtle seems convinced that this cannot be proven or disproved, even though I explicitly described a testable and therefore provable scenario in the OP. Let me reiterate that this is INDEED TESTABLE. I also want to re-iterate that this thing is not recursively super-natural. You're defining as such, which means you've preemptively put it outside of the empirical. This is a logical fallacy. What I've called into question is whether or not this thing would be super-natural at all or just some kid with a pretty cool science project. YOU CAN DEFINITELY TEST THIS, as many people are in the process of doing.

 

Stop creating the fallacy that this is unprovable simply because you believe it to be so.

 

for example, as far as i'm aware, there are no testable hypothesis for string theory.

>no testable hypothesis for string theory

>no testable hypothesis

>string theory

>no hypothesis

>theory

 

WUT

 

and exactly how many diamentions is in string theory? I've heard numbers ranging form 7 to 34.

scientists seem to recently settled on 11, or did last time i checked.

There's 12 dimensions that exist in our universe for sure. The other numbers are what's been proven mathematically, but not yet empirically. As always, google (and Michio Kaku, is your friend).

Edited February 13, 2014 by Snax

[Turtle]

...

Turtle seems convinced that this cannot be proven or disproved, even though I explicitly described a testable and therefore provable scenario in the OP. Let me reiterate that this is INDEED TESTABLE. I also want to re-iterate that this thing is not recursively super-natural. You're defining as such, which means you've preemptively put it outside of the empirical. This is a logical fallacy. What I've called into question is whether or not this thing would be super-natural at all or just some kid with a pretty cool science project. YOU CAN DEFINITELY TEST THIS, as many people are in the process of doing.

 

Nuh uh. : The onus is on you to provide the references for a supposed test. Not only is it a part of the forum rules, it's conduct de rigueur.

 

There's 12 dimensions that exist in our universe for sure. The other numbers are what's been proven mathematically, but not yet empirically. As always, google (and Michio Kaku, is your friend).

 

Kaku is a hack. No dimensions beyond the 3 physical and 1 temporal have been 'proven', which is to say shown to have any predictability ala mathematics. Again, if you have evidence to the contrary it's up to you to provide it, not shove the responsibility up on we fallics. :)

 

As with Boerseun, good to see you Snaxy.

[cal]

Nuh uh. : The onus is on you to provide the references for a supposed test. Not only is it a part of the forum rules, it's conduct de rigueur.

"I am not willing to google things for other people, but I will tell you that there are for sure several teams working on testing for a specific kind of radiation that would only exist in a simulated environment. I know one of the teams is German. Now that you have your keywords, let google be your friend."

 

Kaku is a hack.

And a very tested theoretical physicist. I also hear he's asian. Let's say more things we believe about people because they have a phD and we don't.

 

No dimensions beyond the 3 physical and 1 temporal have been 'proven', which is to say shown to have any predictability ala mathematics. Again, if you have evidence to the contrary it's up to you to provide it, not shove the responsibility up on we fallics. :)

I didn't think evidence was required for common knowledge. Super-symmetry is pure mathematics, and super-symmetry requires 11 dimensions (I think the 12th is for new particles). Super-symmetry is also supported by the empirical evidence of particles existing. It's about that simple.

 

As with Boerseun, good to see you Snaxy.

Yea school was a hindrance, soz. =P

Edited February 14, 2014 by Snax

[Turtle]

"I am not willing to google things for other people, but I will tell you that there are for sure several teams working on testing for a specific kind of radiation that would only exist in a simulated environment. I know one of the teams is German. Now that you have your keywords, let google be your friend."

 

No; that is not acceptable. :naughty: You made the claim(s), you must provide the backup.

Forum Rules

How should I behave?

Be yourself. But please respect these ground rules:

 

◾In general, back up your claims by using links or references.

◾Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted.

◾If you ask for opinions, respect the replies you get.

 

And a very tested theoretical physicist. I also hear he's asian. Let's say more things we believe about people because they have a phD and we don't.

 

Asian has nothing to do with it. While he is good at popularizing physics, he hasn't the nads to call out ridiculous claims that fly in the face of science. He's a woosy.

 

 

I didn't think evidence was required for common knowledge. Super-symmetry is pure mathematics, and super-symmetry requires 11 dimensions (I think the 12th is for new particles). Super-symmetry is also supported by the empirical evidence of particles existing. It's about that simple.

 

 

Yea school was a hindrance, soz. =P

 

As I said above, you made the claim and the onus is on you to provide the backup. You may get away with being a slacker at school but it won't fly here.

[Turtle]

Contrary to Snaxel's unsupported claim, there is no real evidence of 11-dimensions. Moreover, I do give supporting evidence for my claims, outrageous as they may appear. (Bolding in article mine.)

 

M-theory @ wiki

 

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime are identified as 7 higher-dimensions plus the 4 common dimensions (11D st = 7 hd + 4D). Proponents believe that the 11-dimensional theory unites all five 10 dimensional string theories (10D st = 6 hd + 4D) and supersedes them. Though a full description of the theory is not known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity interacting with 2- and 5-dimensional membranes.

...

M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable. Further work continues to find mathematical constructs that join various surrounding theories. However, the tangible success of M-theory can be questioned, given its current incompleteness and limited predictive power.

...

[Turtle]

Still waiting for those reference Snaxy et al. Time's a wastin'. :clock:

 

And while you have me on the line, the last thing you yahoos want is to convince me I'm just a no-account simulation because in that case I would abandon my normal friendly light-hearted manner and unleash a fury the likes of which even you or Dr. Kooku have not imagined.

[Boerseun]

Just an article about those dimensions that seem to be eluding you, Turtle: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070203103355.htm

 

If these hidden dimensions are smaller than anything we can devise a test for, but would have had a major impact on the universe back at the moment of the Big Bang when the universe itself was so small as to be sensitive to such small things like dimensions curled up into Yau-Calabi shapes, and we superimpose our 'imagined' dimensions on to the intial Big Bang and then fast-forward our model a goodly 14-15 billion years to the present day, and compare our modelled universe with the one we can see and it turns out they are identical, would that float your boat?

 

But please, Turtle, keep in mind that this is the Philosophy Forum. Here we can shoot the philosophical breeze. Or so I'm told. Good seeing you too, by the way. Now please sit down and take a deep breath before you unleash your untold fury...