Hm. It doesn't seem like much of that follows, even if we knew that it was true that our universe is a simulation. It could be the case, I suppose, and would further agree that what you've set out seems logically possible.

This paper surveys evidence and arguments for the proposition that the universe as we know it is not a physical, material world but a computer-generated simulation -- a kind of virtual reality. The evidence is drawn from the observations of natural phenomena in the realm of quantum mechanics. The arguments are drawn from philosophy and from the results of experiment. While the experiments discussed are not conclusive in this regard, they are found to be consistent with a computer model of the universe. Six categories of quantum puzzles are examined: quantum waves, the measurement effect (including the uncertainty principle), the equivalence of quantum units, discontinuity, non-locality, and the overall relationship of natural phenomena to the mathematical formalism. Many of the phenomena observed in the laboratory are puzzling because they are difficult to conceptualize as physical phenomena, yet they can be modeled exactly by mathematical manipulations. When we analogize to the operations of a digital computer, these same phenomena can be understood as logical and, in some cases, necessary features of computer programming designed to produce a virtual reality simulation for the benefit of the user.

http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/argument/Argument4.html

Full 90-minute program: As computers become progressively faster and more powerful, they’ve gained the impressive capacity to simulate increasingly realistic environments. Which raises a question familiar to aficionados of The Matrix—might life and the world as we know it be a simulation on a super advanced computer? “Digital physicists” have developed this idea well beyond the sci-fi possibilities, suggesting a new scientific paradigm in which computation is not just a tool for approximating reality, but is also the basis of reality itself. In place of elementary particles, think bits; in place of fundamental laws of physics, think computer algorithms. But is this a viable approach? Is the universe the ultimate computer running some grand cosmic code? A discussion among the brightest minds in digital physics to explore math, computer science, theories of consciousness, the origin of life, and free will—and delve into a world of information that may underlie everything.

http://worldsciencefestival.com/videos/rebooting_the_cosmos_is_the_universe_the_ultimate_computer

Ok. Let's say that we suppose that it is true. Our universe is a simulation.

What difference is it going to make? I mean, what would that knowledge change?

either way, it doesn't matter... i would never believe it anyway...

either way, it doesn't matter... i would never believe it anyway...

either way, it doesn't matter... i would never believe it anyway...

First of all, I thought I answered that question but you are asking it again. What kind of answer do you want? What point do you want to make? That you think nothing would change if we knew for a fact that the universe was digital and a simulation?

What do you want, a prediction of the future? Do you think anyone could know how the future or the present might change when new knowledge is acquired? You would have to employ vision, speculation and imagination and just take a guess.

For people who don't understand the significance of it, or understand how it works, it probably would not change anything. For others, it would change everything.

What would it change for you?

What would it change for science and religion? The possibilities are limitless.

Starting from that scenario, the people who would refuse to believe it would probably still believe in and worship unknown creator gods or the big bang and evolution theories or whatever gets them through the day.

Is the world flat? Does the earth revolve around the sun or does the sun circle the earth?

What does it matter what the lowly life forms on earth believe if all they care about is their survival? Nothing would change for them.

An ignorant person is a person who does not know something. They have no idea they do not know so nothing changes for them.

Ignorance is bliss as they say.

So for the ignorant, and those who remain ignorant, nothing changes.

The answer you gave did say quite a bit. However, as I've already said, without further elaboration, not much necessarily followed from the notion that the universe is a simulation, digital or otherwise. I'll choose to not spend much time arguing about that, for it is beside the point. If we sit and bicker back and forth about that we'll never get to the heart of the matter. I'll say this much...

At most, if the universe is a simulation, then we can say that it is a simulation of something else. It does not follow that a simulation requires to a creator. For instance, part of the criterion for life itself is that the entity in question must be self-replicating. We can see that happen right in front of our eyes. No creator to see though. Why ought our thought/belief about the universe be any different, even if it is 'alive'? The universe could be self-replicating. There is knowledge of self-replication already at hand, whereas we have no such knowledge of a creator. Thus, a conclusion of self-replication requires far less assumptions than anything you've suggested.

I'm granting that the notion of the universe being a simulation is true. I'm asking what difference it would make if it were. We ought think about things on a bit broader level. Nothing that has already happened would change. None of the direct consequences stemming from past events would immediately change. I mean, the president would still be the president; the historical governmental policies across the globe would remain unchanged; etc. In fact, such knowledge would not do much at all in the way of changing what we know concerning evolution either. I mean, surely we can all see that there are all sorts of things that are in place that would be immediately unaffected/uneffected by such knowledge. We can confidently say that much because all these things are already in place even if it is actually the case, unbeknownst to us.

So...

I'm thinking more along the lines of practical change, and what that takes(what it takes for such change to take place). What sorts of things would have to be done in order to invoke the kinds of change that make the world a better place. How could the knowledge be used to make our world a better place? We already know that the world changes in extremely slow fashion, particularly when talking about the way folk think/believe and the overall social change that sometimes, but not always, comes as a result of obtaining knowledge that conflicts/refutes what was once thought/believed to be so.

Contrary to what you thought/believed the answer you offered did not satisfy the target of the question. That may have been a result of the question not having explicit enough meaning behind it, so to speak. That much being said, hopefully you can now better see what I'm asking for.

Well I have no reason to argue about it one way or another. I am not suggesting that I think this universe is a simulation. I think it is a possibility to consider.



A simulation, in my opinion, would require creators, not necessarily a single creator.

What scientists are doing now, is attempting to create their own small version of a simulated universe. Of course it is tiny and can't compare to this one but they are the ones who are creating it, therefore they are the creators.

If the universe is self replicating, then the idea that the universe is "alive" is not a stretch. We may have to redefine "life" if we go down that road.

Perhaps we life forms here in this universe are simply bits and pieces of a larger entity doing our assigned tasks just as the cells and atoms in our bodies are doing their tasks to maintain our body universe.

This particular universe is known by some as a "light universe." Everything is light and frequency. I have heard that some feel there are many other universes, not all of them are light universes.

I don't think much will change that is not compatible with the group consciousness occupying this reality.

What is a creator? A system that creates? What does it mean to 'create'? Act to bring something into existence? Do clouds create rain? Is thought necessary for creation?

Usually when people argue about whether a 'creator' is necessary, they are not just arguing about whether a causal factor is necessary, but also arguing about what kinds of qualities that causal influence needs to have.

The way that I use the word 'simulation', a simulated universe would require 'something else' to exist which executes the simulation, but there is no need for what I would call thought or intention.

ignorance? i guess you can call me ignorant since i choose not to waste any thought on something as pointless as this... no offense, but i think i would rather watch OWN all day rather than even consider thinking about this...

That's a good question. What is a creator?

When a women has a baby, is she creating it? I don't think so. She does not have to give it much thought. It just grows inside of her.

As an artist, I can either create a painting or not.

To create a painting does require conscious deliberate thought. Conscious thought (as apposed to automatic thought..) is deliberate.

So perhaps you could say that there are two kinds of creations. Automatic (which is programmed) and deliberate (which requires more thought and consciousness.)

A creator, in my opinion, must be a deliberate conscious thinker.

Please give an example.

No need for thought or intention? I'd like to see examples.

The lack of knowledge is what is called ignorance. It was not directed at you personally.

No offense is taken.

My point is, if you choose not to believe something that scientists have claimed is a 'fact' your world or attitudes will probably not change much from your point of view.

That is not to suggest that science and what they claim is always true. I don't worship science and I don't swallow all of their theories either, so I have been called "ignorant" many times.

sorry, but if any "scientist" says this is a fact, then they would not be a scientist. i'm not even sure i could call them a scientist if they were even considering it...

seems like their are more theories than facts... but science is a learning process, for everything there is to know, we know nothing, yet...

That's not the point anyway. You never seem to get the point.

(There is already evidence that the universe is digital.) The whole topic is a hypothetical question anyway. It is a what if.... discussion.

I don't want to get into a discussion of what a "fact" is or what a theory is, or who in your opinion qualifies as 'scientist.'

whatever... i call it science fiction, many authors write it... could be in the fantasy section too... if you really think there is any evidence for it, then more power to ya...