Is The Physical Realm Analogous To A Simulated Reality?

[Idolater]

Why is it that you end all of your conversations this way? Do you think it lends weight to your position call everyone else imbeciles? What it does is show the limits of your capacity to communicate. Do better Clete. I know you can.

Good bye!!!!!!

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Good bye!!!!!!

 

[Clete]

Do you want to fight me?

I wanted to discuss the issue you brought up and debate it as best I know how. You respond to that with insults.

Just go believe whatever the hell you want. You're going to anyway! See if anyone here gives a damn. I know I won't.

 

[Derf]

You respond to that with insults.

You are complaining about his insults? Well, doesn't that just beat all!

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

I wanted to discuss the issue you brought up and debate it as best I know how. You respond to that with insults.

Just go believe whatever the hell you want. You're going to anyway! See if anyone here gives a damn. I know I won't.

I'll try to recap a couple key points that are relevant to the OP, and summarize how this thread evolved from there.

First of all, analogous means "similar or comparable to in some way". I'll give you two reasons I view the physical realm as being analogous to a simulated reality, according what the Bible teaches, which I already gave elsewhere in this thread which, for some reason you feel oblidged to comment on without even reading it.

1. Things that are spiritual, supersede things that are physical
2. This physical realm will are currently in, will be destroyed.

That about it. It's not really that important. It's just something to talk about. No analogy is perfect and I think @Idolater has already done a pretty good job in showing in what ways this model doesn't work. And @Derf made some very interesting points involving death and the relationship between the spirit and the body.
ie.

Why do you think people are resurrected when Christ returns? If freedom from the constraints of the physical body is good, why reintroduce such constraints?

Afterwards I think this discussion geared itself more to being about what death is and I also suggested that the brain is an interface between the body and spirit. I quoted Paul, @Right Divider got mad and said I shouldn't take Paul literally. I got mad back at RD and posted a pic of an angry sock puppet, @Ps82 said she thought the sock puppet was cute and then Idolater made a reply to something I had said earlier. Then you came and started acting like a jerk.

That's about it bud.

 

[annabenedetti]

Afterwards I think this discussion geared itself more to being about what death is and I also suggested that the brain is an interface between the body and spirit. I quoted Paul, @Right Divider got mad and said I shouldn't take Paul literally. I got mad back at RD and posted a pic of an angry sock puppet, @Ps82 said she thought the sock puppet was cute and then Idolater made a reply to something I had said earlier. Then you came and started acting like a jerk.

That's about it bud.

That's some classic TOL right there, with whipped cream and a cherry on top!

 

[Clete]

I'll try to recap a couple key points that are relevant to the OP, and summarize how this thread evolved from there.

First of all, analogous means "similar or comparable to in some way". I'll give you two reasons I view the physical realm as being analogous to a simulated reality, according what the Bible teaches, which I already gave elsewhere in this thread which, for some reason you feel oblidged to comment on without even reading it.

1. Things that are spiritual, supersede things that are physical
2. This physical realm will are currently in, will be destroyed.

That about it. It's not really that important. It's just something to talk about. No analogy is perfect and I think @Idolater has already done a pretty good job in showing in what ways this model doesn't work. And @Derf made some very interesting points involving death and the relationship between the spirit and the body.
ie.


Afterwards I think this discussion geared itself more to being about what death is and I also suggested that the brain is an interface between the body and spirit. I quoted Paul, @Right Divider got mad and said I shouldn't take Paul literally. I got mad back at RD and posted a pic of an angry sock puppet, @Ps82 said she thought the sock puppet was cute and then Idolater made a reply to something I had said earlier. Then you came and started acting like a jerk.

That's about it bud.

You wasted your time. You are a waste of time, but not of mine any longer. I regret having ever engaged this thread at all. It must be awful for you to have say what you actually mean and explain yourself more than once. Please don't ever put yourself out like that again for the likes of me. Not that you'll ever have any such further opportunity.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

You wasted your time. You are a waste of time, but not of mine any longer. I regret having ever engaged this thread at all. It must be awful for you to have say what you actually mean and explain yourself more than once. Please don't ever put yourself out like that again for the likes of me. Not that you'll ever have any such further opportunity.

I don't mean to brag but I am telling you, I didn't just fall off the cheesecake wagon last night, bud. I don't mind you taking a shot at me but you did it half-cocked, just like RD, now it's time for you to run home to mommy. I love you guys but I am not going to try to help you punch me, just because you swung and missed the first time. It is embarrassing. Are we not men?

 

[Clete]

I don't mean to brag but I am telling you, I didn't just fall off the cheesecake wagon last night, bud. I don't mind you taking a shot at me but you did it half-cocked, just like RD, now it's time for you to run home to mommy. I love you guys but I am not going to try to help you punch me, just because you swung and missed the first time. It is embarrassing. Are we not men?

I took no shot at you. I do not know you. I don't care anything about you whatsoever! I took a shot at the notion that we're living in some sort of simulation and I responded to what you said with an argument. If you take statements of fact and rational arguments personally, then you've got problems I don't know how to fix.

I most certainly did not swing and miss. The entire premise of this thread's beginning is the literally and factually idiotic notion that we're in some sort of simulation which even the most mentally debased imbecile can see is nonsense. You respond to irrefutable proof of that fact by citing the phrase "analogous to" as if that somehow fixes the issue, but then proceed to "clarify" that meaningless phrase to mean something that has nothing whatsoever to do with either a simulation nor an analogy!

It was a stupid idea to begin with and when called out on it (even by people other than me), instead of recanting it, you make it worse - much worse. In short, there isn't anything ANYONE could ever say to you that would ever change your mind about even the most transparently idiotic ideas that somehow fine their way into your brain. If you were a man, you'd have simply told me that I misunderstood but that you aren't interested in rehashing the whole discussion again. To which I would have responded, "I get it! Maybe some other time." Instead you respond like the childish fool you've repeated shown yourself to be. (Heaven forbid anyone say anything direct in your presence!) Your predictable reaction is, of course, to pretend that I'm the one being childish.

Well, like I said, go believe whatever the Hell you want to believe. Find a bush to hide behind, and watch to see if I care.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

I took no shot at you. I do not know you. I don't care anything about you whatsoever!

Wouldn't it be better if you just apologized to everyone and promised to try not to do it again? The world is a terrible place enough already, what have you got to lose?

 

[Clete]

Wouldn't it be better if you just apologized to everyone and promised to try not to do it again? The world is a terrible place enough already, what have you got to lose?

Yes, it would be better if you just apologized to everyone and promised to try not to promote stupid ideas, try to state what you actually mean and not to respond to arguments as if they're personal attacks.

You won't do it but it would definitely be very much better.

OH! You meant me!

Here's my original post in this thread...

There is precisely NO evidence that we live in ANY SORT of simulation! The whole notion is patently irrational. Literal nonsense!​

​

If I seriously entertain the possibility that the world around me is a simulation, then I must also entertain the possibility that I am part of that simulation. My senses, memories, experiences, and even the processes by which I reason could all be simulated along with everything else.​

​

But if that is so, then I have no independent basis for trusting any evidence that supposedly indicates I am living in a simulation. The evidence itself may be simulated, and so may the reasoning by which I interpret it.​

​

The simulation hypothesis therefore undermines the very faculties required to establish it. If I have reason to distrust my access to reality, I also have reason to distrust the argument that tells me I am living in a simulation.​

​

Thus no evidence arising within the alleged simulation can rationally establish the simulation hypothesis without first assuming that our faculties provide genuine access to reality. But once that assumption is granted, the radical skepticism that gives the hypothesis its force has already been surrendered.​

​

In other words, if your best reason for believing reality is fake is evidence supplied by the fake reality and interpreted by your fake mind, you may want to hold off on voicing theories about the nature of reality.​

​

​

​

"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, but that not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so if every planet in the universe has a population of zero, then the entire population of the universe must also be zero, and any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination." - Douglas Adams - The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy Television show 1981​

Nothing there but straight logical argument and I even ended it with humor that was born more than three decades ago and based on the exact same sort of premise. The only thing I'm guilty of is responding to what you actually said and then, the offense of all offenses, I asked that you actually explain yourself.

 

[Idolater]

Typically what we do is, when we enter a thread after pages of (digital) ink has been spilled already, we take the time to read through the whole thread to get caught up to speed.

We don't just barge in on page 7 and skip through the first six pages, presuming nothing whatever of value could have transpired, demanding the OP clarify himself on page 7, when he's already clarified himself in the first six pages.

You read, and then you respond. That's how it's done. If you're such a rebel that you don't follow this basic unwritten rule, don't act surprised if it's not well received.

You think so much of yourself, and so little of others, when you act so antisocially.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Yes, it would be better if you just apologized to everyone and promised to try not to promote stupid ideas, try to state what you actually mean and not to respond to arguments as if they're personal attacks.

You won't do it but it would definitely be very much better.

OH! You meant me!

Alight, fine. Have it your way.

Here's my original post in this thread...

There is precisely NO evidence that we live in ANY SORT of simulation! The whole notion is patently irrational. Literal nonsense!​

You mean despite all the evidence that everything we currently experience of the physical realm is virtual reality which the mind compiles through the interpretation of electrochemical data streams? Oh ok. Then point to me a location in the physical realm where Joy exists, or Love, or Red for that matter. Love certainly existed before the creation. The Father loved His Son before the creation. It is not something that originates from the physical realm. Love is something that will cause a reaction in us in the physical realm, so that we might die trying to save a loved one or even a stranger. But it originates from the spiritual realm. That is why it cannot be measured by physical means.

Only what is spiritual can measure what is physical. Not the other way around.

​

If I seriously entertain the possibility that the world around me is a simulation, then I must also entertain the possibility that I am part of that simulation. My senses, memories, experiences, and even the processes by which I reason could all be simulated along with everything else.​

​

But if that is so, then I have no independent basis for trusting any evidence that supposedly indicates I am living in a simulation. The evidence itself may be simulated, and so may the reasoning by which I interpret it.​

​

The simulation hypothesis therefore undermines the very faculties required to establish it. If I have reason to distrust my access to reality, I also have reason to distrust the argument that tells me I am living in a simulation.​

​

Thus no evidence arising within the alleged simulation can rationally establish the simulation hypothesis without first assuming that our faculties provide genuine access to reality. But once that assumption is granted, the radical skepticism that gives the hypothesis its force has already been surrendered.​

​

In other words, if your best reason for believing reality is fake is evidence supplied by the fake reality and interpreted by your fake mind, you may want to hold off on voicing theories about the nature of reality.​

​

In all of this, I will tell you that you are just presenting strawmen. Problems that might exist in the mind of the materialist but not in anyone who trusts God and studies the Bible. The Creator teaches we are spiritual beings and that we are designed so that we can trust our faculties in this physical realm. In fact, the Bible consistently stresses that the spiritual supersedes the physical.

Do you agree with that @Clete ? That the Bible teaches that the spiritual supersedes the physical?

Because I think one of the most astonishing evidences for that claim is that your spirit can actually imagine a physical marker, assign an arbitrary value to it and then that marker will command information to flow to your spirit, once placed in the physical realm. Like lines on a thermometer. It is a one-way street. It only works one way.

BTW @Clete Do you agree that this current physical realm will be destroyed, yet we will still exist?

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

If I have reason to distrust my access to reality

I am not asking you to distrust reality. I am asking you if you believe that a greater reality exists beyond what we are currently able to experience.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I am not asking you to distrust reality. I am asking you if you believe that a greater reality exists beyond what we are currently able to experience.

Reality includes what we cannot see, eg, the spiritual realm.

You have yet to establish the "greater" part.

"Reality" is real in a way that virtual worlds are not.

 

[Derf]

Only what is spiritual can measure what is physical. Not the other way around.

Not sure what this means. And love CAN be measured by physical beings, though the metrics are somewhat subjective. Christ told us about the man who might die saving a good man. That's a measure of love.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

Not sure what this means. And love CAN be measured by physical beings, though the metrics are somewhat subjective. Christ told us about the man who might die saving a good man. That's a measure of love.

That's a good point. But if we were only physical beings, then wouldn't that mean we would only be judged by our physical abilities?

 

[Clete]

I am not asking you to distrust reality. I am asking you if you believe that a greater reality exists beyond what we are currently able to experience.

There is precisely one reality. It includes all real things, thus the word, REALity. That isn't sarcasm, by the way. It's just me making the point. Whether we can experience it or not is beside the point. If it is real then it is part of reality, by definition.

The argument I made in my original post addresses this sort of "greater reality" idea. There can be no such thing, and the degree to which you allow such a thing to exist in your mind is the degree to which you cannot tell whether ANYTHING is true. It literally undermines your ability to know anything whatsoever because by its very definition you have no way of telling what the "greater reality" is or isn't - including that which you think belongs to this reality! Unreal reality is just as big a contradiction as super-real reality. Put another way, there is simply NO such thing as an irrational truth. It's just meaningless nonsense.

Now, if by "greater reality" you mean "heaven" then, I strongly recommend that you simply call it "heaven" and drop the problematic terminology that might sound mystical but produces nothing but confusion and misunderstanding.

As for what heaven is or will be, I have often told people, and really do believe, that what God has in store for us is so far outside anything for which we presently have a frame of reference that whatever we imagine it to be is probably sufficiently off the mark as to be entirely wrong, except in the most basic of senses. We can accurately say things like that it will be glorious, joyful, happy, amazing, celebratory, and filled with all other good and righteous things. We might also know certain bare facts about it, such as that the Tree of Life will be present and will bear twelve fruits, with one coming ripe each month. From that we can infer that we will keep time by the fruit of that tree. We can also know that there will be a new, (yet still physical), Earth where the New Jerusalem will be situated, and that this New Earth will have no oceans, (the abyss of the sea being biblically analogous to Hell and sin). All such specifics are known only by means of special revelation, and they are quite few, far between, and bereft of much detail.

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

There is precisely one reality. It includes all real things.

Agreed!

 

[VladtheDestroyer]

The argument I made in my original post addresses this sort of "greater reality" idea. There can be no such thing, and the degree to which you allow such a thing to exist in your mind is the degree to which you cannot tell whether ANYTHING is true. It literally undermines your ability to know anything whatsoever because by its very definition you have no way of telling what the "greater reality" is or isn't - including that which you think belongs to this reality! Unreal reality is just as big a contradiction as super-real reality. Put another way, there is simply NO such thing as an irrational truth. It's just meaningless nonsense.

Now, if by "greater reality" you mean "heaven" then, I strongly recommend that you simply call it "heaven" and drop the problematic terminology that might sound mystical but produces nothing but confusion and misunderstanding.

As for what heaven is or will be, I have often told people, and really do believe, that what God has in store for us is so far outside anything for which we presently have a frame of reference that whatever we imagine it to be is probably sufficiently off the mark as to be entirely wrong, except in the most basic of senses. We can accurately say things like that it will be glorious, joyful, happy, amazing, celebratory, and filled with all other good and righteous things. We might also know certain bare facts about it, such as that the Tree of Life will be present and will bear twelve fruits, with one coming ripe each month. From that we can infer that we will keep time by the fruit of that tree. We can also know that there will be a new, (yet still physical), Earth where the New Jerusalem will be situated, and that this New Earth will have no oceans, (the abyss of the sea being biblically analogous to Hell and sin). All such specifics are known only by means of special revelation, and they are quite few, far between, and bereft of much detail.

I am not sure what you are going on about here or why you posted this actually. Are you back-peddling? By "greater reality" I just mean that there is more to reality than what we are currently able to perceive. Nothing can undermine ones ability to know reality when they trust in the Creator. I already told you that is a strawman. Obviously you are not listening.