What if God were a programmer?

Started by: Cronos | Replies: 11 | Views: 2,970

Cronos

Posts: 5,440
Joined: Apr 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile

Jun 18, 2015 7:57 AM #1373983

I thought I would propose a little thought experiment.

Engaging in this set of questions requires one temporary concession: Our universe is a computer simulation, created by a programmer in a parent universe.

Now don't worry, there is no substantial evidence suggesting that our universe is indeed a simulation. In fact, we're not even sure if it would be possible to know either way.

So here's several questions:

1. Provided that our universe is nothing but a computer simulation, the programmer who created this universe would also be our God. This programmer is likely nothing more than a common entity in his/her parent world, like you or me in this world. Keeping that in mind, how would this change your perception of God? Does your ideal image of God require an aspect of mystery, or omnipotence within his/her own world?

2. This programmer would essentially be omnipotent in regards to our world. However he/she would have no extraordinary control over his/her own world. In fact, this programmer may be subject to the will of his/her own God. How does knowing that there could potentially be a higher power than the God of this world, change your views of said God?

3. How would you feel about a programmer within our world creating his/her own universe simulation? Would this programmer be under any direct obligation to ensure the well-being of all evolved sentient beings within this simulation? What would your perception of this person be, if despite having to ability to eradicate pain and suffering, he/she allowed it to continue. To the contrary, this programmer has also created an avenue for various desirable forces, for example love and happiness.

4. What if thousands of years of events and evolution within this
universe, were but mere seconds of computation in the parent universe? Does knowing that your whole life could potentially play out in the blink of God's eye change your sense of self-importance?

5. What if not just one, but many programmers tended to and interacted with the simulation of our world? How does one interpret God's will, when there could in fact be several different competing wills? Could this account for the various biblical contradictions?

6. More of an upbeat question. Consider the butterfly effect. Any event, no matter how small has the potential to drastically and irrevocably change the course of history. The interactions and observations that this/these programmers have with our world would certainly affect them, and in doing so would change the course of history in their own world. Could love (arbitrary example, could be anything. Even cat videos), for example, really truly transcend space and time as a force of inspiration?

Salt
2

Posts: 5,455
Joined: Jun 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile

Jun 18, 2015 10:17 AM #1374014

1. God would be terrifying. Let's assume that the programmer is human. He is affected by emotions and isn't completely rational. There's no way for us to know what's right or wrong to him. He can choose to make our world however he wants it to be no matter how messed up it is, and set rules for us to follow or go to "hell" no matter how messed up the rules are either. Basically a mortal being with limited mental capacity and an irrational aspect to them is given absolute power over us. That's scary.

2. I wouldn't feel as obliged to do what that God wants me to do, but I'd be forced to do it anyway if he wants to force me, since he has full control unless some circumstance in his world didn't allow that. He's still omnipotent from my perspective.

3. There's two sides of me who are answering this. My more human side is telling me I would hate them. You have absolute power, why not make it all perfect. My more rational side is telling me that it doesn't matter. From their perspective we're only data. We don't matter. Would you really care much if your Wii pet died? You probably won't. Now imagine how you would feel about billions of wii pets.

4. The universe is already huge. My sense of self importance is already low relative to the sheer size of the simulation. It won't change much.

5. Possibly yes. However, it could be mistakes in code, or humans changing and misinterpreting things as they please, as they do with everything, intentionally or not. Fact is I doubt a programmer God would care enough to give us a set of rules to follow. They have much better things to do with their life then instruct billions of software pets on what to do with their worthless lives relative to them. If they did then they'd be quite obsessed, probably mentally ill.

6. The programmer is probably human or something similar to that in their world. They will most certainly be affected by outside forces which will affect their decisions regarding us.

Exile
Administrator
2

Posts: 8,404
Joined: Dec 2005
Rep: 10

View Profile

Jun 18, 2015 1:26 PM #1374038

Quote from Cronos
Now don't worry, there is no substantial evidence suggesting that our universe is indeed a simulation. In fact, we're not even sure if it would be possible to know either way.

This is a little off topic but I wrote this in the science & philosophy section when that was still a thing, we were discussing an article about a theoretical method for testing whether we live in a computer simulation generated by a non-infinite amount of power. pretty interesting:

science! (Click to Show)

great questions, I'm interested to see the responses.

Raptor
Moderator
2

Posts: 5,891
Joined: Aug 2010
Rep: 10

View Profile

Jun 20, 2015 6:04 AM #1374479

I myself don't value the concept of having a god as much as others, which is unfortunate in this context because I feel that the majority of these questions are heavily dependent on how much one already cares and views about god. That being said, I'll try to delineate my personal feelings.

I think the majority of these questions test one thing in common, and that is the actual power of god and how your scenarios contrast with peoples preconceived notions on how all-powerful god is. There are many people who believe in god because of his all-powerful nature in leading people to a hopeful light, and many people try to justify all the wrongs in this world by saying things akin to "It's all part of god's plan." Saying that the lives of people are mostly on a whim to a programmer who isn't directed by a sense of morality is probably jarring to these people, mostly because it directly contradicts the concept of "god's plan" and "god's love." In fact, many people I've met are fully convinced in the existence of god and refuse to believe anything otherwise because they inherently believe that god loves everyone equally (not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing). Your scenarios however pretty much present examples that directly challenge those beliefs and would trivialize faith in god if not outright destroy it. The more we find someone in power more relatable, the more terrifying it can be since we know that no one is perfect and everyone is flawed, and the prospect of having someone just like us run our entire existence is nothing short of disturbing. Our "god" would most likely be treated like a boss or a president; he or she would be intensely criticized for the mistakes he/she made, but also be credited by others for the existence of love for example. Obviously that scenario takes the imagery of god away, mitigating god's importance.

Most of my opinion is mostly anecdotal since they're based on my experiences w/ religion and religious people, but hopefully this shares some degree of sense.

Salt
2

Posts: 5,455
Joined: Jun 2012
Rep: 10

View Profile

Jun 20, 2015 1:37 PM #1374544

Quote from Raptor
I myself don't value the concept of having a god as much as others, which is unfortunate in this context because I feel that the majority of these questions are heavily dependent on how much one already cares and views about god. That being said, I'll try to delineate my personal feelings.

I think the majority of these questions test one thing in common, and that is the actual power of god and how your scenarios contrast with peoples preconceived notions on how all-powerful god is. There are many people who believe in god because of his all-powerful nature in leading people to a hopeful light, and many people try to justify all the wrongs in this world by saying things akin to "It's all part of god's plan." Saying that the lives of people are mostly on a whim to a programmer who isn't directed by a sense of morality is probably jarring to these people, mostly because it directly contradicts the concept of "god's plan" and "god's love." In fact, many people I've met are fully convinced in the existence of god and refuse to believe anything otherwise because they inherently believe that god loves everyone equally (not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing). Your scenarios however pretty much present examples that directly challenge those beliefs and would trivialize faith in god if not outright destroy it. The more we find someone in power more relatable, the more terrifying it can be since we know that no one is perfect and everyone is flawed, and the prospect of having someone just like us run our entire existence is nothing short of disturbing. Our "god" would most likely be treated like a boss or a president; he or she would be intensely criticized for the mistakes he/she made, but also be credited by others for the existence of love for example. Obviously that scenario takes the imagery of god away, mitigating god's importance.

Most of my opinion is mostly anecdotal since they're based on my experiences w/ religion and religious people, but hopefully this shares some degree of sense.

Agreed. This is very much like what I said and wanted to say, just more articulate.

InfiniteAnims2

Posts: 1
Joined: Jul 2015
Rep: 10

View Profile

Jul 21, 2015 4:39 AM #1385136

Quote from Raptor
I myself don't value the concept of having a god as much as others, which is unfortunate in this context because I feel that the majority of these questions are heavily dependent on how much one already cares and views about god. That being said, I'll try to delineate my personal feelings.

I think the majority of these questions test one thing in common, and that is the actual power of god and how your scenarios contrast with peoples preconceived notions on how all-powerful god is. There are many people who believe in god because of his all-powerful nature in leading people to a hopeful light, and many people try to justify all the wrongs in this world by saying things akin to "It's all part of god's plan." Saying that the lives of people are mostly on a whim to a programmer who isn't directed by a sense of morality is probably jarring to these people, mostly because it directly contradicts the concept of "god's plan" and "god's love." In fact, many people I've met are fully convinced in the existence of god and refuse to believe anything otherwise because they inherently believe that god loves everyone equally (not saying that this is necessarily a bad thing). Your scenarios however pretty much present examples that directly challenge those beliefs and would trivialize faith in god if not outright destroy it. The more we find someone in power more relatable, the more terrifying it can be since we know that no one is perfect and everyone is flawed, and the prospect of having someone just like us run our entire existence is nothing short of disturbing. Our "god" would most likely be treated like a boss or a president; he or she would be intensely criticized for the mistakes he/she made, but also be credited by others for the existence of love for example. Obviously that scenario takes the imagery of god away, mitigating god's importance.

Most of my opinion is mostly anecdotal since they're based on my experiences w/ religion and religious people, but hopefully this shares some degree of sense.

In the End, We will conserve only what we love, We will love only what we understand, We will understand only what we are thought.

This world was designed to break your heart, It was designed that way. The author of this story we call Humanity has made sure that we experience both gain and loss.

Shadowolf
Banned

Posts: 107
Joined: Mar 2014
Rep: 10

View Profile

Jul 30, 2015 1:15 AM #1389041

Personally, I don't spend time on nonissues, such as things that will never be known for certain. But what the heck, I'll just go with the flow.

Blow your mind (Click to Show)

Cronos

Posts: 5,440
Joined: Apr 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile

Jul 30, 2015 12:36 PM #1389254

Quote from Shadowolf
Personally, I don't spend time on nonissues, such as things that will never be known for certain. But what the heck, I'll just go with the flow.

Blow your mind (Click to Show)

So, there is this thing called the Theory of Everything. Nobody has it yet. What is the Theory of Everything? It is, in short quantum relativity. Quantum physics describes the minute aspects of the universe, and Relativity describes the immense. Both have been verified as true, but yet they are mutually exclusive in how they operate. By definition, this would mean that one or the other is therefore false...IF we didn't already know from innumerable experiments that they both were true. So, the TOE (Theory of Everything) is supposed to rectify these differences, and answer all our questions.

Now, while the TOE does not exist, we can make presumptions about it. One of these is SuperSymmetry (aka Susy). Now, susy (in short) says that everything in the universe has a parallel. We aren't talking about nanu-nanu wormhole stuff. We're talking about the Foundational Proportion: Matter:Energy/Space:Time. More specifically, the Matter-Energy side of things.

So lets take a look at what this gives us -- We have matter. I hope I don't need to define that for you.
We have antimatter. This is a form of matter based off of subatomic particles with inverted charges/spins from what we find in matter. (As a side note, matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they collide.)
With Susy, we have Susy-matter, and susy-antimatter.

This gives us four forms of m (the abbreviation for matter): matter-antimatter/Susy-matter -- Susy-antimatter.

See a similarity between the above series and the Foundational Proportion? If you did, you just answered the million dollar question :) .

This brings us to String theory. Now, String theory would take a technical tome to actually explain, so I'll just give the jist: everything, the whole universe, atoms, you, me...it is all made of vibrating strings. What are these strings? Combinations of the four forms of matter. You see, scientists think that the Susy forms of matter account for all the "forces" that exists (gravity is actually the gravitron, a Susy-matter particle, for example).

Time to blow your minds.

Energy (E in science write) is defined by forces. Energy consists of quanta. Quanta of (bizarre, albeit) forms of matter (or Susy-matter, as some scientists are beginning to say).
Time (t in science write) is merely a human perception. In its true state, time is a series of simultaneous instances. There is no past, and no future, scientifically speaking. It is merely instances occurring, which the human mind (capable of defying time by remembering past and imagining the future) aligns into a continuum. Their is no defined structure innate to Time, however, which is obvious by the fact that you can "see" the past in rock layers and atomic electron shells in ancient pottery, UNCHANGED, in the current day. Time is dimensionless, except by perception.
Space is not really a definable scientific quantity at all, but is usually stated as "The area occupied by matter, and/or a void of matter." So, space is boiled down to matter or the absence thereof.

Recap of the above: Energy = matter
Time = nothing except human perceptions
Space = matter (or no matter).

In conclusion, we see that the only things that actually exist are the four forms of matter, which in and of themselves can account for everything in the universe.

Thus, it is impossible for this to merely be a "program" or "simulation," since these both require multi-dimesionality, since the beings "think" in terms of dimensions. It is impossible for something to design that which it cannot comprehend.
God, therefore, has to still be God, the indefinable supernatural supreme being. Programmer, you just bit the dust.

Short on time at the moment so I briefly read through, however I am not quite sure how you went from defining time/space/matter/energy to saying a simulation of dimensions is impossible. Can you expand upon the last paragraph.

Shadowolf
Banned

Posts: 107
Joined: Mar 2014
Rep: 10

View Profile

Jul 31, 2015 3:07 AM #1389472

Sure Cronos.

I won't bother going over all of the technical material, since further explanation would require an actual book. So just on how I came to my conclusion...

I presented the argument that scientists are now depicting the universe as consisting not of the 4 dimensions which we perceive, but only existing in terms of different types of matter. This essentially makes the universe one dimensional, with the other three dimensions existing only because humans must think in terms of matter, energy, time, and space if we want to have any semblance of rational thoughts.

That leads me to the next point (I am going to steal my info from Existential philosophers, and a little bit from Extraterrestrial research orgs). For a being to be "intelligent," it must think in terms of time and space, and understand the basic principles of matter and energy. A scientific understanding of these is not required, only that the said being's natural thought processes are defined in terms of these four principles. In fact, it has been said that it is impossible to think without these four principles governing your thoughts.

So, for a "god" to be a programmer, he must be intelligent (a techie geek, but intelligent... :p ). If he is intelligent, then he must think in and only in terms of matter, energy, space, and time. This means that he can therefore only conceive of a universe (programmed as it may be) that is defined by matter, energy, space, and time.

Since scientists are now coming to believe that our universe exists only in terms of matter (vibrating strings of the four forms of matter, albeit), however, this means that the universe's design can be described and understood objectively, but it will be impossible for us to actually comprehend this universe innately. We (as all intelligent beings) will always think in terms of matter, energy, space, and time, even if we know that there is only matter. We MUST think in terms of these, if we want to remain rational in our thought processes.

The "god" would be governed by these same principles (since he would be intelligent), thus meaning that he could not create this universe as it actually exists, because it is beyond the realm of intelligent thought to be able to do so.

All intelligent beings are limited to a merely objective understanding of a one-dimensional universe by definition. Thus, (to go with the idea of the thread) the "creator" of this universe must be outside of all parameters of science. This means he is supernatural, by definition, thus making him the classical God/Creator.

Did that help clear up what I said?

Cronos

Posts: 5,440
Joined: Apr 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile

Aug 1, 2015 2:54 PM #1390279

But aren't you making an assumption that the programmer lives in a universe that follows similar rules to our own? What if the programmer's universe is far different to our own, and life evolved in a drastically different way. It seems like you're saying "humans evolved to perceive the universe in terms of A, B, C, D, and therefore any life-form in any universe couldn't possibly set this evolutionary tendency aside and program a simulation differently".

I can't imagine why this programmer couldn't have just programmed matter with a set of rules to follow, which eventually resulted in us evolving, perceiving that matter, and constructing the notion of time ect.

So my question to you is, with the knowledge that you've proposed (concerning the universe being comprised only of matter), what prevents a life-form from using this knowledge to make a simulation similar to our universe?

Shadowolf
Banned

Posts: 107
Joined: Mar 2014
Rep: 10

View Profile

Aug 3, 2015 6:53 PM #1391201

Philosophically speaking, you cannot be intelligent and rational and NOT think in terms of matter, energy, space, and time.
If you want to bend the rules of philosophy and science to the point that such is possible, the supernatural explanation of God begins to make more sense than such a twisted and improbable principle.

Cronos

Posts: 5,440
Joined: Apr 2009
Rep: 10

View Profile

Aug 4, 2015 9:57 AM #1391434

Quote from Shadowolf
Philosophically speaking, you cannot be intelligent and rational and NOT think in terms of matter, energy, space, and time.
If you want to bend the rules of philosophy and science to the point that such is possible, the supernatural explanation of God begins to make more sense than such a twisted and improbable principle.

"Philosophically speaking, you cannot be intelligent and rational and NOT think in terms of matter, energy, space, and time."

Says who.

You yourself just explained how the world isn't the way we intuitively think it is. Which is exactly why someone could use that knowledge when programming a simulation. Sorry, I don't see any merit in this argument. But regardless, the point of this thread wasn't to discuss whether or not a simulated universe was possible. The point was to discuss the questions after already presupposing a simulated universe.