[dwild]

This idea of a computer simulation is what made me become agnostic. At first I was an atheist, I wasn't believing that any powerful entity would create us like this, a world so complex and coherent, just to test our belief.

If I had the capacity to build this kind of computer simulation, I would personally do it in an heartbeat. In fact I'm feel like I'm doing this on some games. I would also consider myself to be the god of that simulation, I'm omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc...

That's why I believe there could be a god, it's possible that he isn't even aware of our existence and he is just currently playing a big game of Universe Sandbox. However I also came to the same conclusion of that article (at least, based on the title, I still haven't read it, it's on my to read list), does it really matter?

[duaneb]

In my mind, I dislike the 'computer simulation' because it implies an entity that computes, which doesn't really make sense without an uber-reality. Such teleological thinking doesn't belong in scientific reasoning (or even, frankly, philosophy).

[Retric]

IMO it's really a question of the quality the simulation. If it's not bug free you might be able to directly measure hidden variables and possibly 'hack' the simulation. Picture a device that simply tells the simulation to swap the contents of two locations. Or could just directly replicate the contents of some location. Or how about GPS 2 that uses in game /loc command vs an array of satellites.

PS: Just imagine if the large hadron collider ended up opening the game console.

[dwild]

Could you define "uber-reality" and explain how it doesn't really make sense?

[AngrySkillzz]

I think the parent commenter more closely means meta-reality. There is sort of an ongoing debate in science/philosophy over whether our not our Universe actually computes at some level; it looks like it might, but there is no reason a priori for us to believe it does compute and doesn't just seem that way.

To claim that the Universe is a simulation means that it would be the result of some computation. Depending on your interpretation, this could mean one of two things: that the Universe does ITSELF compute, or that there is some "computer" which carries out a computation resulting in the Universe. The second is what I think the parent commenter is thinking about. In that case, where does this "computer" exist? It's certainly not in our reality. This would imply that there is some meta-reality that contains the "computer" which computes, and thus creates/contains, our reality.

[saraid216]

The issue he's talking about can be pretty easily illustrated with "turtles all the way down". A simulation must be, by definition, simulated by something that is external to the simulation itself.

If this isn't infinitely recursive somehow, then there must be an instance that is not a simulation. This is the uber-reality he speaks of.

[dwild]

Ok yes I understands. Thank you.

It all depends of the definition of gods, like I said, if it's omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc.. then I feel like we can consider it our god which would include the one that made our simulation. That would means that they would respect that definition of gods towards us. In the same way, nothing stop gods from having gods themselves. I don't know too much about gods but don't some Greeks gods had some sort of power over each other? It's all relative in a way.

I'm also not actually believing it's the truth too, I'm just acknowledging the possibilities. I don't believe usual religions because I find it hard to believe their "why". The computer simulation does have a why that I believe could be a possibility.

[thomyorkie]

Believing in the possibility of a god doesn't exclude you from being an atheist.