As a software developer who has considered simulation theory and who understands the difficulty in simulation and the complexity of projects like Dwarf Fortress where things, people, events and stories are procedurally generated. You can't balk at the idea of creation and simultaneously hug ideas like simulation. They're in the exact same ballpark whether you approve it or not.
The universe is a part of a timeline, which is a part of a multiverse, which is a part of the omniverse.
Basically, all of reality is layered, the omniverse is all thst exists, the multiverse is all that exists within a given set of natural laws, the timeline is a series of universes between the beginning and end, from the expansion out of a singularity to the collapse back into a singularity again, to repeat the process ad infinitum.
The contents of the universes in each timeline contain a series of configurations of matter and energy between expansion and collapse, whose procession is determined by the natural laws of their multiverse.
On the opposing side of each tineline is an anti timeline, which makes its way back to the origin, and whose content mirrors the progression of the positive timeline on the other side. When the timeline and its anti timeline meet, it is at the point of singularity, where the universes of the two timelines are singularities, which triggers the expansion and collapse cycle all over again, but in the opposing direction from the previous one.
If you want to illustrate the model, you draw a sphere, then around it, you draw a shell made up of elliptical lines going around the sphere with a common origin and end, them take half of that shell, and color it differently, making sure not to color an entire timeline the same color, at the points in the timrlines where they all converge and are furthest from the sphere in the center, label each the point of singularity.
at the midpoint in each timeline, where it is at its closest to the sphere in the center of all timelines, label this point as being where the universe is at its maximum size, the moment where it ceases from expanding and begins to collapse, think a ball at the highest point in the air after you throw it directly up, ceasing to rise and beginning to fall.
then put down somewhere that there are many such extent things which fit this model.
There is one multiverse in.the omniverse for every possible set of natural laws, and one timeline in every multiverse for every possible set of configurations of matter and energy within the particular set of natural laws of their multiverse.
The sphere in the center is the multiversal core, which produces the natural laws particular to that multiverse.
The difference between creationism and simulation hypothesis is that the creator of the simulation is not some eternal omnipotent omniscient omnipresent or omnibenevolent being, or some group of such beings.
They are just ordinary being or group of ordinary beings on a higher level of reality. The difference between creationism and simulation hypothesis is that in the latter, our God is a very fallible moratal or team or very fallible mortals.
This universe may not even be their only creation, or their most important one, in fact, this could be a throwaway simulation to be discarded for a better version.
On a flipside, simulation hypothesis also allows for the possibility that we would create simulated universes of our own, essentially making us creators of the universe for other beings.
I myself reject simulation hypothesis, and think otherwise of our universes origin it's not a mainstream explanation, and is usually only brought up as a potential answer by those who also do not believe in it.
[ - ] boogienight [op] 1 point 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 08:50:12 ago (+1/-0)
I think when you go back to creationism with simulation in your mind, even though the creationists say things like "he is the almighty"... well yea compared to your version of reality... "he is the alpha and omega"... yea he created this simulation... "he giveth and he taketh away"... yep. I feel like with a few adjustments in attitude these 2 ideas really aren't so far apart. One was born of religion and one was born of witnessing computer simulation performed in human hands, but they both discuss the same reality. Some entity outside of our understanding conjured our experience and surroundings seemingly out of thin air.
It is hypothesized that the precursors to symbiotic biological replicants arose from functional organization of matter in water-based crystalline arrangements with the coincidental addition of lightning — if this is an accurate description of the beginnings of life here and elsewhere (as a matter of convergence), crude in silico thus predates in vivo and your simulation proposal approaches deus ex machina
[ - ] boogienight [op] 1 point 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 03:58:48 ago (+1/-0)
It is also hypothesized that a creator made everything you see. It is also hypothesized that everything you've ever thought and experience is a simulation. You can pick creation, simulation or a bolt of lightning creating magic with water, but where did the bolt or water come from? This is very recursive, it keeps going back further and further until something had to create something.
[ - ] Battlefat 1 point 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 04:10:44 ago (+1/-0)
The bolt from static electricity, which is the physical interaction of inorganic matter, the water from the chemical reaction of two proximal elements, each, if discrete, would have no outcome or consequence, truly, recursion aside, reductio ad absurdum that the creator thus created himself.
[ - ] Battlefat 1 point 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 09:41:09 ago (+1/-0)
I’ll concede that without the benefit of observation outside of our own frame of reference, the ability to postulate on the nature of creation is simply a thought experiment, the creation of which is either due to my own faculties, or those perhaps programmed into my perception by an infinitely more clever creator
We've learned a lot from the observations of the way virtual particles seemingly pop into existence as one of a binary pair, then collapse back into each other again and dissappear.
Something comes from nothing because nothing is very unstable.
What you are doing us false skepticism, you are asking questions which have answers thst could easily be found by you of you were actually interested in finding them, you want to lead us to a conclusion you favor by asking questions to a point of ignorance and then asserting a "who" behind it all. Which of course, you call your "God" character.
The issue being is that the "God" you are working with is defined in such a way that he cannot be the "God" of any religion we know of, since his properties have been defined as being in contradiction to most religious Gods out there.
The only ones left are some desitic (monodeistic, polydeistic, pandeistic, or panendesistic) version of God, or some other irreligious version of God.
For example, the God of a simulation world is one who is not necessarily omnipotent, even in the world of his own creation, any game developer knows that there are limits to what one can create in a simulation, and what one can do with a simulated world, even when you are the designer with full access.
And you want to lead us to assume that nothing is automatically unstable. You could never know that because you've never experience nothing apart from trying to think about what life was like 10 years before you were born. The nothingness of Paradoxical003 was quite stable during that period
[ + ] account deleted by user
[ - ] account deleted by user 1 point 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 13:02:29 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PuttitoutIsGone
[ - ] PuttitoutIsGone 0 points 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 09:53:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 0 points 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 05:49:19 ago (+0/-0)
Basically, all of reality is layered, the omniverse is all thst exists, the multiverse is all that exists within a given set of natural laws, the timeline is a series of universes between the beginning and end, from the expansion out of a singularity to the collapse back into a singularity again, to repeat the process ad infinitum.
The contents of the universes in each timeline contain a series of configurations of matter and energy between expansion and collapse, whose procession is determined by the natural laws of their multiverse.
On the opposing side of each tineline is an anti timeline, which makes its way back to the origin, and whose content mirrors the progression of the positive timeline on the other side. When the timeline and its anti timeline meet, it is at the point of singularity, where the universes of the two timelines are singularities, which triggers the expansion and collapse cycle all over again, but in the opposing direction from the previous one.
If you want to illustrate the model, you draw a sphere, then around it, you draw a shell made up of elliptical lines going around the sphere with a common origin and end, them take half of that shell, and color it differently, making sure not to color an entire timeline the same color, at the points in the timrlines where they all converge and are furthest from the sphere in the center, label each the point of singularity.
at the midpoint in each timeline, where it is at its closest to the sphere in the center of all timelines, label this point as being where the universe is at its maximum size, the moment where it ceases from expanding and begins to collapse, think a ball at the highest point in the air after you throw it directly up, ceasing to rise and beginning to fall.
then put down somewhere that there are many such extent things which fit this model.
There is one multiverse in.the omniverse for every possible set of natural laws, and one timeline in every multiverse for every possible set of configurations of matter and energy within the particular set of natural laws of their multiverse.
The sphere in the center is the multiversal core, which produces the natural laws particular to that multiverse.
[ + ] boogienight
[ - ] boogienight [op] 0 points 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 08:45:30 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 0 points 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 05:22:42 ago (+0/-0)
They are just ordinary being or group of ordinary beings on a higher level of reality. The difference between creationism and simulation hypothesis is that in the latter, our God is a very fallible moratal or team or very fallible mortals.
This universe may not even be their only creation, or their most important one, in fact, this could be a throwaway simulation to be discarded for a better version.
On a flipside, simulation hypothesis also allows for the possibility that we would create simulated universes of our own, essentially making us creators of the universe for other beings.
I myself reject simulation hypothesis, and think otherwise of our universes origin it's not a mainstream explanation, and is usually only brought up as a potential answer by those who also do not believe in it.
[ + ] boogienight
[ - ] boogienight [op] 1 point 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 08:50:12 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 09:12:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Battlefat
[ - ] Battlefat 0 points 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 03:52:39 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] boogienight
[ - ] boogienight [op] 1 point 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 03:58:48 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Battlefat
[ - ] Battlefat 1 point 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 04:10:44 ago (+1/-0)
It is the implication
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 09:19:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Battlefat
[ - ] Battlefat 1 point 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 09:41:09 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 0 points 2.6 yearsSep 30, 2021 11:28:11 ago (+0/-0)
Something comes from nothing because nothing is very unstable.
What you are doing us false skepticism, you are asking questions which have answers thst could easily be found by you of you were actually interested in finding them, you want to lead us to a conclusion you favor by asking questions to a point of ignorance and then asserting a "who" behind it all. Which of course, you call your "God" character.
The issue being is that the "God" you are working with is defined in such a way that he cannot be the "God" of any religion we know of, since his properties have been defined as being in contradiction to most religious Gods out there.
The only ones left are some desitic (monodeistic, polydeistic, pandeistic, or panendesistic) version of God, or some other irreligious version of God.
For example, the God of a simulation world is one who is not necessarily omnipotent, even in the world of his own creation, any game developer knows that there are limits to what one can create in a simulation, and what one can do with a simulated world, even when you are the designer with full access.
[ + ] boogienight
[ - ] boogienight [op] 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 2, 2021 02:10:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Paradoxical003
[ - ] Paradoxical003 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 2, 2021 06:04:03 ago (+0/-0)
Nothingness refers to a vaccuum, no air, no light, nothing.
It's difficult to conceive of a void, because in common parlance, what we tend to refer to as nothing is usually full of something.