On 10/20/2010 10:12 AM, Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> A "superuniverse" hypothesis is most probably not testable for the
>> very reason that we are completely bound to the laws and geometry of
>> our own Universe. We have no way to reach the "outside" (because there
>> is no "outside" as far as this Universe is concerned, because we are
>> bound to its internal geometry, which knows no "outside").
>
> I'm not sure this follows, given that it's possible for the
> superuniverse to affect this universe. We don't have to reach out to run
> experiments, if we can observe what's happening. And I can demonstrate
> this with an example:
>
> Let's say the superuniverse exists, and not only that, our universe was
> specifically created and controlled by a being there whom we will call
> God for want of a better name. Think of our universe as a giant
> (deterministic) game of The Sims for God.
>
> Interestingly, this give all kinds of attributes to "God" that are
> usually discussed in earth religions nowadays: Created the universe.
> Omnipotent, by the simple expedient that he can modify any bit of the
> code to make it do what he wants, or change data structures with a
> debugger, etc. Omniscient, by the simple expedient of checkpointing the
> simulation, letting it run, and seeing what happens, then winding it
> back again. Capricious, possibly. Interested in humans, likely, unless
> God is only interested in some other bunch of aliens. Desiring of
> worship, perhaps, if that's how he gets his rocks off. Probably still
> not infinitely loving and caring, but I'm pretty sure last I looked that
> only Christians think of God that way.
>
> Certainly if such a supernatural being exists, it might be easy for him
> to simply reveal such a fact to everyone in unarguable ways,
> definitively answering whether there is such a thing as "supernatural",
> even beyond the ability of alien technology, such as altering
> fundamental physical constants, predicting the results of quantum
> events, moving things around faster than light, etc.
>
>
> Of course, then, the next question becomes whether, if so revealed, the
> supernatural becomes part of our universe and hence natural. At that
> point, it's a semantic argument.
>
Course, another question is, "Is it truly possible to create such a 
construct, in which the actors in the construct can *never* be aware of 
the nature of the construct?" I.e., no flaws can be detected, things 
that happen in ways they shouldn't, or which otherwise implies that the 
system was "designed". This is a perfectly valid question, for which the 
answer seems to be, "Nothing obvious, so far, would imply this, as far 
as we can tell." Doesn't prove that the "design" isn't bullet proof, in 
the sense of use not being *able* to see the flaws, but, again, if that 
is the reality of the situation, then all we can do is work with what we 
*can* see, since, by definition, the superuniverse is irrelevant to 
anything we can detect/test/analyze anyway, and therefor does not, for 
practical purposes, exist anyway.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message