How Would Reality being a Simulation Affect Catholicism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
My link gives reason that we now cannot simulate our reality on a computer.

If you are going to claim something ridiculous as a mathematical or scientific fact, the burden of proof is on you.
 
No, the evidence is not that we literally live in a computer simulation. It’s a handy thing to say that the mathematical nature of reality demonstrates that our reality is a simulation, but that would simply mean a superintellect has crafted reality one way or another. But there’s really no reason to presume that it is a computer simulation, especially considering “theoretical physicists Zohar Ringel and Dmitry Kovrizhin from the University of Oxford and the Hebrew University in Israel applied Monte Carlo simulations (computations used to generate probabilities) to quantum objects moving through various dimensions and found that classical systems cannot create the mathematics necessary to describe quantum systems. They showed this by proving that classical physics can’t erase the sign problem, a particular quirk of quantum Monte Carlo simulations of gravitational anomalies (like warped spacetime, except in this case the researchers used an analogue from condensed matter physics).”

Further, simulations don’t create themselves.
 
Last edited:
You have failed to demonstrate that a computer simulation would be necessary cause or that everything from a computer simulation would be a necessary cause, even assuming that reality could be a computer simulation (there are reasons to believe it could not)
 
lisaandlena said:
Keep in mind however, that since everything would in fact be a part of that simulation, everything is in effect the necessary cause.
Click to expand...
You can’t just arbitrarily stick two concepts together and expect it to make sense. Why should i think that everything is a necessary act of reality?
 
lisaandlena said:
Think of reality like a circle. Where on the circle is the beginning?
Click to expand...
What reality are we talking about here? Because if you are talking about the reality of our experiences, then what i see is a series of something moving from potentiality to actuality. So lets stick with the facts. I don’t see something that is necessarily actual. And if by the concept of a circle you mean that one can conceive of physical reality as having no absolute temporal beginning, like a cyclical universe, then whether or not that is true, does not make any difference to the qeustion of whether or not physical reality is necessarily actual for the simple fact that it is changing. Not to mention that a thing cannot have an infinite regress of secondary causes regardless of the fact that it moves in a closed circle because nothing in the circle is the original cause of actuality from potential; thus the cause of change itself doesn’t originate with anything within the circle… So your concept is nonsensical and irrelevant at least in so far as trying to apply such a concept too our experiences…

If something is necessarily actual (necessarily real, necessarily exists, is pure actuality), it cannot be considered as that which was at one time or another only potentially actual; even if we are only talking about moving from one state to another state. It cannot have any kind of potentiality at all. If it does then it is not necessary existence. Even if each part is necessary within the series, that is only an indication of a necessary relationship. It is not an indication of existential necessity.
 
Last edited:
Well, they do, but anything that comes out of nothing spontaneously also fades back into nothing very quickly unless acted on by an external force.
 
If a scientist said that something came from nothing without a cause, they can only mean it came into existence without a "physical cause" because physical reality is the only context in which they can speak about causes given the scientific method. For a scientist to claim that some event has no cause simply means that they can no longer identify physical causes in the classical sense commonly understood before quantum theory came along because physical activity at micro scales are probabilistic, spontaneous, and tend to have an element of randomness. But In principle a scientist cannot negate the possibility of a cause in an absolute existential sense; which is just a result of their scientific agnosticism as an extension of methodological naturalism. It just means that mechanistic type causes commonly perceived on the macro scale do not apply at the quantum level… It’s probabilistic, not deterministic.

It’s reasonable to accept that, but when a scientist no-longer operates in the proper epistemological context they are overstepping the underlying epistemological principle of their method. science does not use metaphysical naturalism as their starting point, they use Methodological Naturalism. Any notion that they have proved that a thing has come from nothing without any conceivable cause for its existence is absurd and not science; it doesn’t even qualify as a hypothesis…

Quantum events might come into existence probabilistically or randomly in relation to space-time according to physical laws, but it doesn’t mean that such an event does not require a cause for its being since we are still talking about something moving from potential to actual, and potential cannot actualize itself…
 
Last edited:
lisaandlena said:
And you failed to understand what it means to be an epistemological solipsist. I can’t prove much of anything. I can’t PROVE that reality is a computer simulation, just as you can’t PROVE that there’s an omnipotent God somewhere.
Click to expand...
So…being an epistemological solipsist allows you to just assert things without evidence or proper argument?

We can be certain of things in as much that we are certain of anything else. And even though you say you are uncertain of anything, I highly doubt you live like it. I can “know” that my toothbrush is still where I left it. If it were gone, some agency acted to move the brush from the spot it was at. If I have a hot drink that is too hot to drink, and assuming I am in a comfortable climate, I just need to wait a few paltry moments.

Being a solipsist does not allow you to just willy nilly claim things.
 
I was referring to quantum fluctuations. Conservation of energy can be violated on very short timescales, but without an external energy source, the virtual particles formed thereby quickly fade into nothing.
 
mythbuster1 said:
I was referring to quantum fluctuations. Conservation of energy can be violated on very short timescales, but without an external energy source, the virtual particles formed thereby quickly fade into nothing.
Click to expand...
Okay, but how does this mean, from a metaphysical point of view, that they have no cause for their existence?

You responded to my argument, so i am assuming that you think that a thing can begin to exist without a cause and science demonstrates this as true…
 
Not really, the vacuum itself is something. I was just pointing out that virtual particles have no detectable cause, and observationally speaking, randomly pop into and out of existence unless acted on by a force to impart sufficient energy and momentum for them to become real.
 
By saying not really, i will assume that you never meant to imply that a physical being can begin to exist from absolutely nothing without a cause in an ontological sense. You just mean that it has no physical cause, at least not in the classical sense. Am i correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top