ID or creationism
Can we count this as a form of either?--Nate River 20:53, 31 December 2008 (EST)
- Probably not, unless you can actually explain what you mean? ħuman 00:34, 18 January 2009 (EST)
If our universe is a simulation, something must have created it. Could that not be considered a form of creationism? and if we were designed with set parameters, could that not be intelligent design?--Nate River 00:41, 18 January 2009 (EST)
- Creationism has a fairly specific meaning, relating to the creation of the universe (I.E. the entirety of everything), usually by a deity. If what we perceive to be the universe transpired to be something created by other beings, those would still exist within the actual universe, so the question of how the universe itself was created would remain unanswered. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 00:51, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Is this really a theory that people actually believe in (as the text says), or is it more of a thought experiment, or just a synopsis of The Matrix? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 00:46, 18 January 2009 (EST)
- Sounds to me like someone is just a bit enamored of The Matrix. May I recommend Cronenberg's eXistenZ? And to answer W, no, no one actually "believes" this. It's deletable tripe. ħuman 00:51, 18 January 2009 (EST)
- I, for one, actually "believe" this, as it seems more mathematically likely than not. So your statement is, without a doubt, false, and a complete fabrication. Please don't take for granted that you know every thought of every person on the planet.— Unsigned, by: 184.108.40.206 / talk / contribs 07:38, 06 June 2016
- I'm actually not a fan of the Matrix. To me, though, this makes just a little more sense than YEC, which I find completely bonkers.--Nate River 00:56, 18 January 2009 (EST)
- OK, I guess I see your point. Is their a way to reassemble the words to make the perspective clearer? Like, rewrite some of it? In a way that says "here's a silly idea, and why it is almost as bonkers as YEC"? ħuman 01:09, 18 January 2009 (EST)
- I think it's a useful thought experiment. As a theory, it seems rather pointless.Alpha3031 (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Isn't this textbook deism, just given a mechanism of how it might work? Both ideas assume that our universe was created by someone(s)/something(s) and left to run without interference. Both ideas offer no explanation for the origin of the universe's creator. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
- If it's the result of something rather than someone, we don't have a god under most definitions, because this assumes agency. Right? Otherwise we can talk about the Big Bang and all its processes as a god. What if the external universe has weird rules and builds a mindless supercomputer with rules similar to evolution and by pure chance provided the simulation? What I'm trying to say is: I'm not sure if simulated reality requires a creator.
- Another thing we'd need to talk about is if there really hasn't been any interference. I'm sure there are people out there believing in a more deistic simulated reality and yet other people believing there is some interference. Anyway, I just assumed this was a separate point. RSamys (bla) 08:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I’d just like to point out...
If we are in a simulated reality, it would go a long way in explaining Fermi’s paradox, perhaps our “programmers” did not anticipate that we’d get so far as to question our “reality” to this degree? (Where is everybody?) 13:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
The case against The Truman Show Argument
"Jupiter-sized matrioshka brain"
I think the numbers need to be cited. This seems to conflate "Jupiter brain" with "matrioshka brain" (and was misspelled "Matroishka Brain"). A matrioshka brain is a series of nested Dyson spheres (like Rusian matryoshka dolls) surrounding a star. A Jupiter brain is a brain the size of Jupiter. Indy (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)