None of this is real

[JCSkinner]

I appreciate the points made re the 'God of the Gaps', but I don't think it's fair to characterise this arguments as such.
The virtuality theory doesn't leave any room for a deus ex machina at all.
If we scale it back to our own technological developments, this becomes evident. Let's assume that those cloud computing models of global warming actually featured people-like entities.
Let's assume those entities become sentient and self-aware, within those virtual reality models. What relationship would any creator - the programmer for example - have with them? None. The only meaningful interaction possible is that of pulling the plug on the model.

[cactusflower]

I appreciate the points made re the 'God of the Gaps', but I don't think it's fair to characterise this arguments as such.
The virtuality theory doesn't leave any room for a deus ex machina at all.
If we scale it back to our own technological developments, this becomes evident. Let's assume that those cloud computing models of global warming actually featured people-like entities.
Let's assume those entities become sentient and self-aware, within those virtual reality models. What relationship would any creator - the programmer for example - have with them? None. The only meaningful interaction possible is that of pulling the plug on the model.

But you still have a deus ex machina who made the place in that scenario. I don't see that this is any different to those "what if we're all just someone else's imaginary world" childhood musings.

All the scientific evidence is that we are part of a material world within which we have evolved as a species.

[Dios]

The virtuality theory doesn't leave any room for a deus ex machina at all.

God of the gaps isn't a reference to god per se, it means "if we can't explain it immediately, it must have been some higher power/programmer/sky beard and we will never explain it".

There are also a few more things with your comment, cloud computing is a buzzword used to refer to distributed storage across diverse systems, little to do with global warming models. Also we have no real idea what sentience actually means, and no real definition for it that works, similar to gravity (although the aforementioned Heim theory, while at variance with Einstein's general relativity, is making some serious inroads there) so even if software did attain some kind of sentience we'd probably never know it. Its quite doable for a software engineer to suspend a running process, amend code and resume the process.

[JCSkinner]

But you still have a deus ex machina who made the place in that scenario. I don't see that this is any different to those "what if we're all just someone else's imaginary world" childhood musings.

It isn't, except that your childhood musings probably didn't adequately explain most of the outstanding unresolved conundra of contemporary science.

All the scientific evidence is that we are part of a material world within which we have evolved as a species.

Indeed. That doesn't contradict the theory in the slightest, though.

[JCSkinner]

God of the gaps isn't a reference to god per se, it means "if we can't explain it immediately, it must have been some higher power/programmer/sky beard and we will never explain it".

But this theorem IS an attempt to explain it immediately.

There are also a few more things with your comment, cloud computing is a buzzword used to refer to distributed storage across diverse systems, little to do with global warming models.

You misunderstand my reference. You know those downloads where you too can contribute to the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence by running analyses of radio signals on your own PC?
Well, there are similar for running global warming models. Hence: cloud computing operating global warming models.
See here: http://www.climateprediction.net/index.php
I only chose the example because it posits little mini-worlds running on a series of computers, akin to a mini-multiverse.

Also we have no real idea what sentience actually means, and no real definition for it that works, similar to gravity (although the aforementioned Heim theory, while at variance with Einstein's general relativity, is making some serious inroads there) so even if software did attain some kind of sentience we'd probably never know it.

That's quite true. The groundbreaking work into artificial intelligence done up at Queen's under Jack Smith suggests that it would require both a suitable communication interface and the awareness and desire on the part of the AI to communicate.

Its quite doable for a software engineer to suspend a running process, amend code and resume the process.

But for any entity within the process, how might that be experienced?

[Dios]

But this theorem IS an attempt to explain it immediately.

Saying "god did it" isn't an explanation. To be a theorem, it needs to be able to make provable predictions, and it can't, which makes this less than even a hypothesis. Unhappily it shares that property with most of QM, with the notable exception of Heim theory. There are giant cracks between the quantum world and the world of general relativity. Einstein went to his grave banging his head against a blackboard trying to unite them.

Back in the 1950s a crippled, obscure, and reclusive German scientist who lost his hands and his sight researching weapons in the twilight of the third reich, attempted to rejoin the two schools of thought using completely new ideas and concepts that went largely unnoticed, since he didn't want his work to leave his homeland, and wrote largely in code as well, which is why to this day a majority of quantum physicists haven't heard of him, and even modern day researchers have difficulty translating his notes, leading to several misunderstandings. This was Burkhard Heim.

His theories are entirely unique in that they did make testable predictions about the size of subatomic particles, which the latest equipment in CERN has confirmed, and so are quickly gaining traction. By extension, his theories allow for a radical new understanding of the heretofore unknown force that is gravity, including its manipulation in astonishing ways.

We're just short of the technology required to make a full scale test model to actually build one of his devices, based on the work of two of his closest associates, which true to Heim's tradition have produced papers of such staggering complexity that even experienced physicists, well used to the arcane wendings of theoretical research are left crying out for a reader's digest version.

If there is any truth to his theories however, the consequences are immense. Artificial gravity and reverse artifical gravity are two of the possible spinoffs of the work. More information can be found here

It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts. Initially, the researchers were reluctant to believe their own results.

"We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement," says Tajmar, who performed the experiments and hopes that other physicists will conduct their own versions of the experiment in order to verify the findings and rule out a facility induced effect.

and here

He outlined this work in 1977 in the Max Planck Institute's journal Zeitschrift für Naturforschung, his only peer-reviewed paper. In an abstruse way that few physicists even claim to understand, the formulae work out a particle's mass starting from physical characteristics, such as its charge and angular momentum.

Yet the theorem has proved surprisingly powerful. The standard model of physics, which is generally accepted as the best available theory of elementary particles, is incapable of predicting a particle's mass. Even the accepted means of estimating mass theoretically, known as lattice quantum chromodynamics, only gets to between 1 and 10 per cent of the experimental values.

From this, Dröscher claims, you can derive the four forces known in physics: the gravitational and electromagnetic forces, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. But there's more to it than that. "If Heim's picture is to make sense," Dröscher says, "we are forced to postulate two more fundamental forces." These are, Dröscher claims, related to the familiar gravitational force: one is a repulsive anti-gravity similar to the dark energy that appears to be causing the universe's expansion to accelerate. And the other might be used to accelerate a spacecraft without any rocket fuel.

So you can understand why one might be sceptical of someone who claims to have it all figured out on the basis that "its a simulation".

I only chose the example because it posits little mini-worlds running on a series of computers, akin to a mini-multiverse.

Ah I see, folding@home or one of those.

But for any entity within the process, how might that be experienced?

It wouldn't. Once the process stops, all records of the changes stop since they are part of the environement. I'm not saying its impossible, any more than invisible pink unicorns dancing around my head are impossible, its just far too pat an answer, especially since researchers are making significant progress towards answering those so called "uanswerables" as we speak.

A thousand years ago, lightning was the work of god, because we hadn't the knowledge to understand it. Now we can generate the stuff and use it to power machines that allow near instant communication between relative strangers across the tens of thousands of miles. A thousand years from now, similarly impossible feats will be considered not just ordinary, but entirely mundane. This progress is not achieved by adhering to any "god of the gaps" ideas.

[JCSkinner]

Saying "god did it" isn't an explanation.

But he didn't say god did it. He simply points out the uncanny parallels between the known unknowns of contemporary physics and the defining features of virtual reality.

So you can understand why one might be sceptical of someone who claims to have it all figured out on the basis that "its a simulation".

Not really sure of the relevance of Heim to the discussion. Or where you just demonstrating you know the history of physics?
One of the most bizarre aspects of our universe is the nature of gravity. It, frankly, shouldn't be so weak, or rather the fact that it is so weak is counter-intuitive to what we know about natural forces. This has led to dimensional theories suggesting that our universe exists at the weak end of a gravity well, for example.
But I don't see the relevance of Heim to the discussion in hand. Heim doesn't come close to unifying the two fields, hasn't been proven, and could STILL be a subset of a virtuality.

Ah I see, folding@home or one of those.

Aye.

It wouldn't. Once the process stops, all records of the changes stop since they are part of the environment.

Hence my point earlier that the only possible interaction is that of pulling the plug. You cavilled that it could be 'suspended and amended', but now appear to accept that there would be no experiential difference for any entity within the virtuality whether the plug was pulled or it was suspended and amended.

I'm not saying its impossible, any more than invisible pink unicorns dancing around my head are impossible, its just far too pat an answer, especially since researchers are making significant progress towards answering those so called "uanswerables" as we speak.

Well, let's hear the answers, then.

A thousand years ago, lightning was the work of god, because we hadn't the knowledge to understand it. Now we can generate the stuff and use it to power machines that allow near instant communication between relative strangers across the tens of thousands of miles. A thousand years from now, similarly impossible feats will be considered not just ordinary, but entirely mundane. This progress is not achieved by adhering to any "god of the gaps" ideas.

I can only repeat, you appear to be deliberately misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) the theory. It's not god of the gaps. It posits neither god nor gaps.

[Dios]

But he didn't say god did it. He simply points out the uncanny parallels between the known unknowns of contemporary physics and the defining features of virtual reality.

Thats because virtual reality software is based on contemporary physics. What else would it be based on?

Not really sure of the relevance of Heim to the discussion. Or where you just demonstrating you know the history of physics?

Heim isn't the history of physics. He might be the future of physics, but that remains to be seen. The point I was trying to make was that previously poorly understood phenomena are as we speak being understood.

Heim doesn't come close to unifying the two fields, hasn't been proven, and could STILL be a subset of a virtuality.

You should read those articles. Also, as I said, unique among the many quantum theories, his prediction have been proven. And regardless of Heim's contributions, there could still be invisible pink unicorns dancing around my head.

Hence my point earlier that the only possible interaction is that of pulling the plug. You cavilled that it could be 'suspended and amended', but now appear to accept that there would be no experiential difference for any entity within the virtuality whether the plug was pulled or it was suspended and amended.

Which proves what exactly? I already mentioned it was entirely possible, its just more likely that its waffle.

Well, let's hear the answers, then.

I'll post them to you along with a photocopy of my nobel prizes and the vital statistics of the team of cheerleaders I have taken as brides.

I can only repeat, you appear to be deliberately misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) the theory. It's not god of the gaps. It posits neither god nor gaps.

This is entirely at variance with the quote I posted from the paper about the big bang.

[JCSkinner]

Thats because virtual reality software is based on contemporary physics. What else would it be based on?

Plenty of things are based on contemporary physics, including contemporary physics itself. Yet they don't offer coherent explanations for the known unknowns of contemporary physics. Your explanation is a category error.

Heim isn't the history of physics. He might be the future of physics, but that remains to be seen. The point I was trying to make was that previously poorly understood phenomena are as we speak being understood.

Are they? I'm not aware of any great breakthroughs in recent times. If anything, as the author of that paper points out, physics is balkanising into an ever more bizarre series of contradictory theories.

You should read those articles. Also, as I said, unique among the many quantum theories, his prediction have been proven. And regardless of Heim's contributions, there could still be invisible pink unicorns dancing around my head.

I agree, Heim's 'contributions' don't add much to this discussion. Your unicorns sound more promising.

Which proves what exactly? I already mentioned it was entirely possible, its just more likely that its waffle.

Er, my point was that a reboot is a reboot. You introduced the waffle about suspending and amending.

I'll post them to you along with a photocopy of my nobel prizes and the vital statistics of the team of cheerleaders I have taken as brides.

Do, please.

This is entirely at variance with the quote I posted from the paper about the big bang.

In what way?

[cactusflower]

I appreciate the points made re the 'God of the Gaps', but I don't think it's fair to characterise this arguments as such.
The virtuality theory doesn't leave any room for a deus ex machina at all.
If we scale it back to our own technological developments, this becomes evident. Let's assume that those cloud computing models of global warming actually featured people-like entities.
Let's assume those entities become sentient and self-aware, within those virtual reality models. What relationship would any creator - the programmer for example - have with them? None. The only meaningful interaction possible is that of pulling the plug on the model.

How, exactly ?