Irrelevance of God?

Since conciousness is created by some arrangement of the neurons and electrical impulses in our brain (barring a 'soul'), consciousness can theoretically be recreated using a man-made computer. Matter and the laws of physics can also be described using a computer, to a degree of accuracy. If both these statements are true, I see no reason why a simulated 'Universe' - indistinguishable from the real McCoy, to its inhabitants - could not be created by a single person, naturally at some point in the distant future. My question is this: would the person (or people, for that matter) who built the computer and wrote the software be accurately described as God(s)? In other words, is the creation of the Universe, life and consciousness (as well as an assumed omniscience, in the computer program scenario) enough to be classified as God, or are omnipotence and immortality absolutely necessary? More importantly, would the creation of a Universe without pain, death - the usual drawbacks - make you objectively 'better' than, for argument's sake, the Christian God?

First timer here, feel free to rip my arguments to shreds.

We already have the capability to create. Isn't that what reproduction is?

Originally posted by: Spammer.

Since conciousness is created by some arrangement of the neurons and electrical impulses in our brain (barring a 'soul'), consciousness can theoretically be recreated using a man-made computer. Matter and the laws of physics can also be described using a computer, to a degree of accuracy. If both these statements are true, I see no reason why a simulated 'Universe' - indistinguishable from the real McCoy, to its inhabitants - could not be created by a single person, naturally at some point in the distant future. My question is this: would the person (or people, for that matter) who built the computer and wrote the software be accurately described as God(s)? In other words, is the creation of the Universe, life and consciousness (as well as an assumed omniscience, in the computer program scenario) enough to be classified as God, or are omnipotence and immortality absolutely necessary? More importantly, would the creation of a Universe without pain, death - the usual drawbacks - make you objectively 'better' than, for argument's sake, the Christian God?

Those are some thought provoking questions. Let me do a cursory two-dimensional analysis first and depending upon how much interest is piqued, get more comprehensive.

That brain produces consciousness or consciousness emerges from the brain is a popular assumption absent empirical evidence. As of today, we don't know if consciousness is physical or nonphysical, local or non-local. We still don't know the neuronal correlates of consciousness and even if hypothetically speaking we do discover such correlates, it doesn't guarantee that we will be able to solve the question of how and why we have subjective experiences. For instance, three people can bite into the same apple, one might find it delicious, one might like it and the third one might spit it out. The question is, what does the apple really taste like? So to your first statement, what algorithm in your computer encapsulate the real taste of an apple?

Formulating physical laws using mathematical equations to describe physical phenomena is not the same as creating the physical phenomena. I could describe a car but I didn't create the car. I could assemble a car using parts but I didn't create the parts that I have used to assemble the car. I could create the parts but I didn't create the alloys used to make the parts. I could create the alloys but not the elements that make up the alloys. You get the drift - ultimately, the energy we have at our disposal is not created by us.

But if we were to get putative for a second and say a single person or a group of persons did manage to create a simulated universe that mirrors our universe; it still doesn't mean that there certainly will be inhabitants in that universe possessing intelligence. In our universe, matter and forces combined to randomly evolve (guided by laws of nature of course) to what we see all around us. In a rerun, it's not a given that things would AGAIN evolve into what we see all around us. Question to you then would be: in your simulated universe are you keeping things deterministic? Are you guiding processes? If yes, do you think the intelligent inhabitants of the simulated universe wouldn't be able to figure that out? Because, in this universe, so far we can't tell with certainty whether processes are truly deterministic or not. At the micro level, it seems chaotic where as at the macro level it is bound by cause and effect.

As for the questions with the philosophical bent concerning pain, death and "the usual drawbacks" as you put it. We usually understand things in terms of one another. If pleasure is all there is, I doubt if we will ever experience pleasure. An orgasmic moment becomes an orgasmic moment only if the previous moment is non-orgasmic. Gradations seem to matter when experiencing this world. I too abhor the concepts of pain and suffering and would never "forgive" the "creator/designer" (if there is one) for introducing pain and suffering but objectively speaking, I don't think we can have a functioning universe without a contrast. A contrast in each and every concept and entity. Which could be the reason why we have particles and anti-particles, black and white, attraction and repulsion in this universe. To distinguish one from another.

Originally posted by: Spammer.

Since conciousness is created by some arrangement of the neurons and electrical impulses in our brain (barring a 'soul'), consciousness can theoretically be recreated using a man-made computer. Matter and the laws of physics can also be described using a computer, to a degree of accuracy. If both these statements are true, I see no reason why a simulated 'Universe' - indistinguishable from the real McCoy, to its inhabitants - could not be created by a single person, naturally at some point in the distant future. My question is this: would the person (or people, for that matter) who built the computer and wrote the software be accurately described as God(s)? In other words, is the creation of the Universe, life and consciousness (as well as an assumed omniscience, in the computer program scenario) enough to be classified as God, or are omnipotence and immortality absolutely necessary? More importantly, would the creation of a Universe without pain, death - the usual drawbacks - make you objectively 'better' than, for argument's sake, the Christian God?

First timer here, feel free to rip my arguments to shreds.

Originally posted by: city-musings

I don"t think either statement is true, but why on earth would you assume that just because the laws of physics can be described using a computer that therefore an indistinguishable simulated Universe could be created. The laws of physics could be described using a pencil and paper too, that doesn"t mean you could write a simulated Universe on a legal pad and it would be indistinguishable from the universe does it?

When invalidating the topic maker's argument, I liked how you considered various facts to bolster your refutation. For instance, I liked how you brought up the University of Bonn simulation experiment where physicists with the help of the world's most powerful supercomputers could only simulate a few femtometers of the cosmos using quantum chromodynamics. I agree with you that simulating just a few femtometers of cosmos is pathetic and I concur how Moore's law might not be applicable here to allow them to simulate a significantly large areas of space because of the complexity of the physics involved. However I differ with you on one account which is the fact that we only need a few micrometers of space to encapsulate all the functionality of a human cell even if the genetic code in the cell might end up being non-algorithmic. That said, I particularly liked how you emphasized that the energy possessed by particles have fundamental limits imposed on them because of lattice spacing even though I am not sure I understand why you think the lattice cut off cannot be the same as the GZK cut off. You don't think high energy particles in cosmic rays are capped?

Originally posted by: city-musings

No, I don"t think computer programmers that write simulation games are Gods, if they were they would be able to get girlfriends.

Brilliant observation!

One of the reasons why the effects in 3D computer graphics and video games feel so realistic is because they actually incorporate real world physical laws via what are called physics engines. These create virtual environments that can include objects with accompanying forces (such as gravity, EM and so on) applied to them in addition to interactions between objects, such as collisions. A physics engine simulates Newtonian physics in a simulated environment and manages those forces and interactions.

https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-physicsengines/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_engine

So, yes, simulation of physical laws using firmware has already been done. Matter of fact, there are many high precision physics engines available in the market. It's a fair assumption that with time realism will be fully achieved.

Now, as a first step to simulating the real world (sans intelligence life), what needs to be done is to switch the traditional silicon based computers with biocomputers built out of DNA and plug in the physics engines with these biocomputers.

Feasible? You bet!

Originally posted by: Spammer.

Since conciousness is created by some arrangement of the neurons and electrical impulses in our brain (barring a 'soul'), consciousness can theoretically be recreated using a man-made computer. Matter and the laws of physics can also be described using a computer, to a degree of accuracy. If both these statements are true, I see no reason why a simulated 'Universe' - indistinguishable from the real McCoy, to its inhabitants - could not be created by a single person, naturally at some point in the distant future. My question is this: would the person (or people, for that matter) who built the computer and wrote the software be accurately described as God(s)? In other words, is the creation of the Universe, life and consciousness (as well as an assumed omniscience, in the computer program scenario) enough to be classified as God, or are omnipotence and immortality absolutely necessary? More importantly, would the creation of a Universe without pain, death - the usual drawbacks - make you objectively 'better' than, for argument's sake, the Christian God?

First timer here, feel free to rip my arguments to shreds.

Originally posted by: BirdieNumNum

note here that a simulated universe does not even have to be huge. For it to feel like a universe, it just has to create the illusion of vastness... That way, we too might be living in a tiny universe, with our senses scaling distances etc to make it all appear vast.

Absolutely! The universe is supposed to be homogeneous and isotropic. In layman's terms, it's the same pattern any which way you look at it. Patterns reek of regular expressions in comp. science lingo.

The fact that it takes us years to reach the nearest star other than Sol if traveling at the speed of light, and the fact that a human's lifetime is capped at 100 years plus or minus 20, indicates that ...well it indicates that such distances are not meant to be real. In a real world, I don't see how infinities can fit in. On paper sure but in the real world? That can't be. So, those distances could be there to discourage us from even trying to travel. Or, and this is a big one, to serve as a hint to us telling us that it's the wrong way to go about traveling the universe or a wrong perspective to have about the universe.

Of course, just as in the case of God, the standard objections apply here too. If our universe is a simulation then who are our parent ancestors, and who are their parent ancestors and so on.

What we have to then understand is that all the words coined by us are space-time dependent. Ancestors is a word dependent on time. Just as immortality is, when talking about God.

So the first order of business when "solving" such conundrums would be to take time out of the equation. Treat it as though time doesn't apply to such concepts.

A photon for instance doesn't "experience" time because it moves at a constant velocity in free space and in relativity it is a constant in each and every reference frame.

Also, time varies according to the distribution of mass in space so higher the mass, greater the gravity and "slower" the time. So, in a black hole too, time is not "experienced" relative to the "outside" universe.

That makes it two concepts where time as we know it is not "applicable". Important to remember when space or time come in the way of exploring ideas.

For a religious believer, God will never be irrelevant. Because no matter how many mysteries unravels, there is a comfort people take in faith.

Outside the realm of religious faith, a narrow religious God maybe irrelevant. However, truth is never irrelevant. To me the concept of God was equivalent with the quest for truth.

As for the questions other than electronic worlds like Second Life and World of War Craft, are humans anywhere close to creating worlds. We play creator (God?) in small aspects like cloning, reviving/extending life, breeding new species. But worlds. Were not even a few mm on this long road.