What hath Tod wrought?

[wonderer]

Let's suppose there is a six dimensional universe (6 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension).  In this universe there is a naturalistically evolved intelligent being called Tod.

Now suppose that due to existing in this six dimensional universe, brains and computers can be vastly more powerful than in our universe due to the extra dimensions available for interconnectivity, higher complexity of parts per volume, etc.  (Feel free to add dimensions as needed.)  In other regards we can consider Tod to be a lot like us for the purposes of this thought experiment.

Now Tod is a researcher at a university, and the prevailing wisdom is that intelligent life can only evolve in a universe with four spatial dimensions or more.  Tod sets out to study this matter, and in the course of this study he sets up some comprehensive simulations of a universe with three spatial and one temporal dimension.  After some trial and error, Tod succeeds in creating a simulated universe where intelligent life evolves.

Of course Tod's creation is meant to be understood as our universe.  So, some questions:

1.  Can it be proven by beings inside such a simulation what the nature of their existence is?

2.  Is Tod deserving of worship by the intelligent beings that exist inside the simulation?
2a.  Does it change things to know that Tod is going to shut the simulation down in ten minutes?
2b.  Does it further change things to know that ten minutes in Tod's time is equivalent to 10 million years in our time?

Now, suppose Tod's colleague Ged gets a copy of Tod's program and runs it on his own 6D computer.  However, unlike Tod who is hands off other than setting the simulation going, Ged gets really interested in the lives of some intelligent beings in one tiny microcosm of the simulation.   Ged develops ways to manifest himself within the simulation he is running and to communicate with the 3D people who are being simulated.  GED tells some of the 3D people that he is going to build 6D robots in the actual 6D universe and give the 3D people he approves of bodies in the real 6D world.

3.  Is GED more worthy of worship than Tod?  Why or why not?

[Paterfamilia]

Let's suppose there is a six dimensional universe (6 spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension).  In this universe there is a naturalistically evolved intelligent being called Tod.

Now suppose that due to existing in this six dimensional universe, brains and computers can be vastly more powerful than in our universe due to the extra dimensions available for interconnectivity, higher complexity of parts per volume, etc.  (Feel free to add dimensions as needed.)  In other regards we can consider Tod to be a lot like us for the purposes of this thought experiment.

Now Tod is a researcher at a university, and the prevailing wisdom is that intelligent life can only evolve in a universe with four spatial dimensions or more.  Tod sets out to study this matter, and in the course of this study he sets up some comprehensive simulations of a universe with three spatial and one temporal dimension.  After some trial and error, Tod succeeds in creating a simulated universe where intelligent life evolves.

Of course Tod's creation is meant to be understood as our universe.  So, some questions:

1.  Can it be proven by beings inside such a simulation what the nature of their existence is?

2.  Is Tod deserving of worship by the intelligent beings that exist inside the simulation?
2a.  Does it change things to know that Tod is going to shut the simulation down in ten minutes?
2b.  Does it further change things to know that ten minutes in Tod's time is equivalent to 10 million years in our time?

Now, suppose Tod's colleague Ged gets a copy of Tod's program and runs it on his own 6D computer.  However, unlike Tod who is hands off other than setting the simulation going, Ged gets really interested in the lives of some intelligent beings in one tiny microcosm of the simulation.   Ged develops ways to manifest himself within the simulation he is running and to communicate with the 3D people who are being simulated.  GED tells some of the 3D people that he is going to build 6D robots in the actual 6D universe and give the 3D people he approves of bodies in the real 6D world.

3.  Is GED more worthy of worship than Tod?  Why or why not?

Answering 3., which one loves the intelligent beings enough to die for them?

[Trinity]

I don't think consciousness can be simulated. The questions seem to assume it can.

[λ-calculus]

The questions are too vague.

[Crash Test]

Good to see lots of theists jumping to challenge and defend their views with deeply thought out and well-constructed argument.

[Paterfamilia]

Good to see lots of theists jumping to challenge and defend their views with deeply thought out and well-constructed argument.

My opinion is that neither the OP, nor yourself has any of those things as a hopeful goal.  You prove that by your comment.

.

[Crash Test]

My opinion is that neither the OP, nor yourself has any of those things as a hopeful goal.  You prove that by your comment.

.

Oh right.  So wonderer starts a new thread to follow up on a discussion from an earlier one.  He writes multiple paragraphs and clearly explains his position.

After a day, the sum total of theistic responses amount to three single line posts.  Having waited for actual argument, I comment about it.

Rather than offer any actual substance, or agree that the theistic responses have been very weak and limited, you accuse myself and wonderer of underhandedness on the basis of... nothing?

This is even more hypocritical given that in other threads we have people like lucious and lambda whining about lack of rigorous arguments from atheists (in the face of this being a flat out lie), and you say nothing at all.

[Paterfamilia]

My opinion is that neither the OP, nor yourself has any of those things as a hopeful goal.  You prove that by your comment.

.

Oh right.  So wonderer starts a new thread to follow up on a discussion from an earlier one.  He writes multiple paragraphs and clearly explains his position.

After a day, the sum total of theistic responses amount to three single line posts.  Having waited for actual argument, I comment about it.

Rather than offer any actual substance, or agree that the theistic responses have been very weak and limited, you accuse myself and wonderer of underhandedness on the basis of... nothing?

This is even more hypocritical given that in other threads we have people like lucious and lambda whining about lack of rigorous arguments from atheists (in the face of this being a flat out lie), and you say nothing at all.

My observation is based on the history of the contributors, as I have had opportunity to read them, which typically consist primarily of baiting sarcasm and mockery.

Why should I think this ocassion is any different?  Yours is obviously sarcastic.

I asked a genuine question, meant to find out if wonderer had considered the scope of his comparison between Tod, GED, and God, and to point out that without a full inclusion of God's properties, this is not a valid context for comparison.

He didn't answer me.

[Crash Test]

My observation is based on the history of the contributors, as I have had opportunity to read them, which typically consist primarily of baiting sarcasm and mockery.

Why should I think this ocassion is any different?  Yours is obviously sarcastic.

Who cares if my tone was sarcastic?  I said:

"Good to see lots of theists jumping to challenge and defend their views with deeply thought out and well-constructed argument."

To write that non-sarcastically:

"It's sad to see barely any theists answer the question, and for those that have to have offered such pathetic non-answers."

Is the second really better?  Or are you just using the tone I chose as an excuse to criticise?

I asked a genuine question, meant to find out if wonderer had considered the scope of his comparison between Tod, GED, and God, and to point out that without a full inclusion of God's properties, this is not a valid context for comparison.

He didn't answer me.

*Hasn't* answered you.  He hasn't posted in the thread since.

But it's not like your question is particularly informative.  By "die", you mean for the equivalent of three days in our time.  Which in their time is barely a moment.  If you think willingness to die for less time than you'd even notice makes someone worship-worthy, then that's a bit weird.  It also raises the question of how much you worship all the people who are willing to die permanently for others.

[Paterfamilia]

My observation is based on the history of the contributors, as I have had opportunity to read them, which typically consist primarily of baiting sarcasm and mockery.

Why should I think this ocassion is any different?  Yours is obviously sarcastic.

Who cares if my tone was sarcastic?  I said:

"Good to see lots of theists jumping to challenge and defend their views with deeply thought out and well-constructed argument."

To write that non-sarcastically:

"It's sad to see barely any theists answer the question, and for those that have to have offered such pathetic non-answers."

Is the second really better?  Or are you just using the tone I chose as an excuse to criticise?

I asked a genuine question, meant to find out if wonderer had considered the scope of his comparison between Tod, GED, and God, and to point out that without a full inclusion of God's properties, this is not a valid context for comparison.

He didn't answer me.

*Hasn't* answered you.  He hasn't posted in the thread since.

But it's not like your question is particularly informative.  By "die", you mean for the equivalent of three days in our time.  Which in their time is barely a moment.  If you think willingness to die for less time than you'd even notice makes someone worship-worthy, then that's a bit weird.  It also raises the question of how much you worship all the people who are willing to die permanently for others.

I think that anyone who makes that objection maybe isn't acquainted with how fully human Jesus was on the earth and how much He suffered.  He was worthy of worship before He died - He is worthy of adoration, deovotion, and love for what He accomplished on the cross.

I wonder how much "you'd even notice" a single stroke of a rod to your back?  This is a silly objection in my opinion.

If this was the only thing He ever did, and He wasn't God, you might have a small point.  But not if He was who He claimed to be.

Finally, someone willing to die for his friends demonstrates the greatest love.  Thank God that that death isn't permanent.

Nor is any other.

I don't see how any of these realities can be explored in wonderer's virtual world.  So it isn't a surprise that few are willing to comment.

[Crash Test]

I think that anyone who makes that objection maybe isn't acquainted with how fully human Jesus was on the earth and how much He suffered.  He was worthy of worship before He died - He is worthy of adoration, deovotion, and love for what He accomplished on the cross.

I wonder how much "you'd even notice" a single stroke of a rod to your back?  This is a silly objection in my opinion.

This is all based on faith, not reason.  You believe Jesus' suffering was so extreme because you have faith that it is, not because it makes sense for it to be.  In the context of an apologetics site called "reasonable" faith, this is a problem.

If this was the only thing He ever did, and He wasn't God, you might have a small point.  But not if He was who He claimed to be.

I don't follow.

Finally, someone willing to die for his friends demonstrates the greatest love.  Thank God that that death isn't permanent.

Nor is any other.

I don't see how any of these realities can be explored in wonderer's virtual world.  So it isn't a surprise that few are willing to comment.

Since when do arguments here have to encompass the literal entirety of the issue discussed?  wonderer's virtual world covers at least as much relevant ground as the kalam does.

[Paterfamilia]

Jesus suffering makes logical sense.  Here's why.

God has a problem of evil (GPoE).  And it's not the one that you're familiar with (PoE).  God's problem of evil is very different.

It is of immeasurable good to spend eternity with other free-will, intelligent beings in a 100% familiar love relationship.  So it's good that God would create those beings.

The problem is that their creation entails the possibility of evil from the moment of their instantiation forward.  This is God's problem of evil.  It's a logical entailment.

So what does God do in order to deal with this problem?

One thing He does is teach about love and hatred and demonstrate the difference.  So how best would He do that?

First He would create a context that is suitable for the demonstration.  Then He would put some of the intelligent beings into tat context and let their individual decisions form a state of affairs within which an adequate demonstration can be performed.

At the right time, He would Himself enter in to that context on the same level as the intelligent beings.  And He would demonstrate in maximal extremity His own nature and character.

When Jesus died on the cross, He was carrying out this demonstration of maximal love that deals with God's problem of evil.  He demonstrated what real love is, so that the intelligent beings know what it is, and will never doubt for all eternity.  They will also know that to live right and do good, they must sacrifice of themselves and put the good of others ahead of their own good.

This is a recipe for harmonious eternal life amongst free-will intelligent beings.

[Paterfamilia]

If you want to see an irrational equivocation, there is a great example in your last paragraph.

[OrdinaryClay]

Of course Tod's creation is meant to be understood as our universe.  So, some questions:

1.  Can it be proven by beings inside such a simulation what the nature of their existence is?

Because the beings are sentient the writers of such a simulation would have to proactively create software within the simulation that would prevent the beings from detecting the simulation.

Based on our real life understanding and experience with modern software it is reasonable to assume that such a simulation would have so many bugs that detection of the simulation by the simulated beings would be certain.

The likelihood of software bugs is directly proportional to the complexity of the software. The complexity is driven by the combinatoric explosion of the compound logic of such software. Many modern software security experts believe that creating secure software in our world is all but impossible because of the impossibility of finding all exploitable bugs. Such a simulation would be many orders magnitude more complex than what we see in our world.

[OrdinaryClay]

Good to see lots of theists jumping to challenge and defend their views with deeply thought out and well-constructed argument.

Really the whole premise is complete fantasy.