Stage one: Indoctrinated by guys like Duane Gish (I wrote an anti-evolution biology report in the 9th grade circa early 80s).

Stage two: Read Hugh Ross, lived in Hawaii. Big Island was (and is) still being created and Kauai has rivers, so I had to either decide the earth was old OR my Lord and Savior was a deceiver since it was obvious that Kauai and Maui had major differences
that could only be accounted for by millions of years or a trickster god.

Stage three: Went through a major drama, divorce, excommunication (from a charasmatic cult) and ended up reading Dawkins and William Lobdell, started questioning my faith. Ultimately became an atheist.

Stage four: Realized if I was an athiest, I couldn't just think evolution was bullshit so I started reading things like Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale, and Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Became an "evolutionist" after becoming an atheist simply by the
fact I didn't know anything about evolution beforehand. Yeah, I was a Christian Evangelical that didn't believe in evolution because reason, reason, reason, but had never bothered to study it.

Stage five: Have been reading and listening to the topic of the idea that we probably live in a construct and most certainly live in a "Many Worlds" universe and I'm struggling with the idea that in my internal monologue I'm starting to sound like a
creationist again. Not a creator god, of course, but a designer of the universe that we live in.

Maybe it doesn't matter -- was listening to a lecture by Sean Carroll and it seems pretty obvious that if we're in a "Many Worlds" situation (also, where I found this site was Rationality AI to Zombies and Eliezer basically says the "Many Worlds" idea in
Quantum Mechanics is extremely sound) that in the end, none of these worlds interact, so we can pretend they're like free will.

I'm re-reading Tegmark's Mathmatical Universe again in hopes of insight, but that book is 10 years old, so perhaps (probably) it's behind the current science.

So, the question of his post, if anyone has any insight or papers/videos/books that explore the idea, I'm curious how the ideas in Quantum Mechanics and "We live in a Construct" would apply, or potentially apply, to what we see in the world, i.e.
answering questions about biogenisis and evolution, natural selection, and possibly even an "after-life" or a situation where we die but wake up in the next level up universe.

I was listening to the Nick Lane podcast with Lex Fridman on orgin science and it's insanely facinating -- the thing about the "many worlds" hypothesis in QM is that we don't have to wonder "gee, how many billions of worlds would it take for this to
happen?" because many worlds posits there could be infinte worlds (to follow the Schrodinger's equations) so it doesn't matter, whatever number needs to happen (in this case) happened. Or perhaps there's billion earths with life and 4.7x10(insert some
power here, doesn't matter, could be a number with a billion trillion trillion zeros) earths that are sterile and dead (or still just have bacteria).

Anyway, my crisis (well not really a crisis) is that I'm thinking it makes sense that we live in a construct, a computer simulation, and therefore, guess what? There's a creator if this is the case. Obviously (to me) not any theist monster sky daddy GOD
but rather some intelligent species (or maybe an AI species -- AI in that organic life brought them about) that created this universe and we live in simulation that was set up with some "laws" and the rest happened naturalistically (or according to the
program) but, even then, it brings an uncomfortable answer, i.e. it's like the "Mandela Effect" whereas you can always say, "Oh, well, the The Cambrian Explosion, yeah, the creators of the simulation got bored and did some tweaking...."

Well, I'm still a naturualist materialist hedonistic atheist, but I find myself more and more thinking, shit, maybe creation ideas have some merit afterall and maybe when we croak we wake up in the real world (or another simulation).

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Michael Beverly <michaelsbeverly@gmail.com> wrote:

Stage one: Indoctrinated by guys like Duane Gish (I wrote an
anti-evolution biology report in the 9th grade circa early 80s).

Stage two: Read Hugh Ross, lived in Hawaii. Big Island was (and is) still being created and Kauai has rivers, so I had to either decide the earth
was old OR my Lord and Savior was a deceiver since it was obvious that
Kauai and Maui had major differences that could only be accounted for by millions of years or a trickster god.

Stage three: Went through a major drama, divorce, excommunication (from a charasmatic cult) and ended up reading Dawkins and William Lobdell,
started questioning my faith. Ultimately became an atheist.

Stage four: Realized if I was an athiest, I couldn't just think
evolution was bullshit so I started reading things like Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale, and Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Became an
"evolutionist" after becoming an atheist simply by the fact I didn't know anything about evolution beforehand. Yeah, I was a Christian Evangelical
that didn't believe in evolution because reason, reason, reason, but had never bothered to study it.

Stage five: Have been reading and listening to the topic of the idea that
we probably live in a construct and most certainly live in a "Many
Worlds" universe and I'm struggling with the idea that in my internal monologue I'm starting to sound like a creationist again. Not a creator
god, of course, but a designer of the universe that we live in.

Maybe it doesn't matter -- was listening to a lecture by Sean Carroll and
it seems pretty obvious that if we're in a "Many Worlds" situation (also, where I found this site was Rationality AI to Zombies and Eliezer
basically says the "Many Worlds" idea in Quantum Mechanics is extremely sound) that in the end, none of these worlds interact, so we can pretend they're like free will.

I'm re-reading Tegmark's Mathmatical Universe again in hopes of insight,
but that book is 10 years old, so perhaps (probably) it's behind the current science.

So, the question of his post, if anyone has any insight or papers/videos/books that explore the idea, I'm curious how the ideas in Quantum Mechanics and "We live in a Construct" would apply, or
potentially apply, to what we see in the world, i.e. answering questions about biogenisis and evolution, natural selection, and possibly even an "after-life" or a situation where we die but wake up in the next level up universe.

I was listening to the Nick Lane podcast with Lex Fridman on orgin
science and it's insanely facinating -- the thing about the "many worlds" hypothesis in QM is that we don't have to wonder "gee, how many billions
of worlds would it take for this to happen?" because many worlds posits
there could be infinte worlds (to follow the Schrodinger's equations) so
it doesn't matter, whatever number needs to happen (in this case)
happened. Or perhaps there's billion earths with life and 4.7x10(insert
some power here, doesn't matter, could be a number with a billion
trillion trillion zeros) earths that are sterile and dead (or still just have bacteria).

Anyway, my crisis (well not really a crisis) is that I'm thinking it
makes sense that we live in a construct, a computer simulation, and therefore, guess what? There's a creator if this is the case. Obviously
(to me) not any theist monster sky daddy GOD but rather some intelligent species (or maybe an AI species -- AI in that organic life brought them about) that created this universe and we live in simulation that was set
up with some "laws" and the rest happened naturalistically (or according
to the program) but, even then, it brings an uncomfortable answer, i.e.
it's like the "Mandela Effect" whereas you can always say, "Oh, well, the
The Cambrian Explosion, yeah, the creators of the simulation got bored
and did some tweaking...."

Well, I'm still a naturualist materialist hedonistic atheist, but I find myself more and more thinking, shit, maybe creation ideas have some merit afterall and maybe when we croak we wake up in the real world (or another simulation).

I had always thought they were Berenstein Bears. What happened? Evil daemon playing tricks? Yet I never did buy into non-player characters existing in
the simulation. Seems elitist, like people calling others sheeple. That
Musk pontificated upon the simulation diminished the status of the idea immensely. Sorry. Guy’s a pseudointellectual jackass with money to buy engineers. Maybe he thinks most of us are exploitable NPCs. Also much of
the popularized heavy lifting for the simulation argument comes from a blockbuster movie that borrowed heavily from French poststructuralist philosopher Jean Baudrillard and he thought the movie got his ideas all
wrong.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/08/2023 00:59, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Michael Beverly <michaelsbeverly@gmail.com> wrote:

Stage one: Indoctrinated by guys like Duane Gish (I wrote an
anti-evolution biology report in the 9th grade circa early 80s).

Stage two: Read Hugh Ross, lived in Hawaii. Big Island was (and is) still
being created and Kauai has rivers, so I had to either decide the earth
was old OR my Lord and Savior was a deceiver since it was obvious that
Kauai and Maui had major differences that could only be accounted for by
millions of years or a trickster god.

Stage three: Went through a major drama, divorce, excommunication (from a
charasmatic cult) and ended up reading Dawkins and William Lobdell,
started questioning my faith. Ultimately became an atheist.

Stage four: Realized if I was an athiest, I couldn't just think
evolution was bullshit so I started reading things like Selfish Gene,
Ancestor's Tale, and Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Became an
"evolutionist" after becoming an atheist simply by the fact I didn't know
anything about evolution beforehand. Yeah, I was a Christian Evangelical
that didn't believe in evolution because reason, reason, reason, but had
never bothered to study it.

Stage five: Have been reading and listening to the topic of the idea that
we probably live in a construct and most certainly live in a "Many
Worlds" universe and I'm struggling with the idea that in my internal
monologue I'm starting to sound like a creationist again. Not a creator
god, of course, but a designer of the universe that we live in.

Maybe it doesn't matter -- was listening to a lecture by Sean Carroll and
it seems pretty obvious that if we're in a "Many Worlds" situation (also,
where I found this site was Rationality AI to Zombies and Eliezer
basically says the "Many Worlds" idea in Quantum Mechanics is extremely
sound) that in the end, none of these worlds interact, so we can pretend
they're like free will.

I'm re-reading Tegmark's Mathmatical Universe again in hopes of insight,
but that book is 10 years old, so perhaps (probably) it's behind the current science.

So, the question of his post, if anyone has any insight or
papers/videos/books that explore the idea, I'm curious how the ideas in
Quantum Mechanics and "We live in a Construct" would apply, or
potentially apply, to what we see in the world, i.e. answering questions
about biogenisis and evolution, natural selection, and possibly even an
"after-life" or a situation where we die but wake up in the next level up universe.

I was listening to the Nick Lane podcast with Lex Fridman on orgin
science and it's insanely facinating -- the thing about the "many worlds"
hypothesis in QM is that we don't have to wonder "gee, how many billions
of worlds would it take for this to happen?" because many worlds posits
there could be infinte worlds (to follow the Schrodinger's equations) so
it doesn't matter, whatever number needs to happen (in this case)
happened. Or perhaps there's billion earths with life and 4.7x10(insert
some power here, doesn't matter, could be a number with a billion
trillion trillion zeros) earths that are sterile and dead (or still just have bacteria).

Anyway, my crisis (well not really a crisis) is that I'm thinking it
makes sense that we live in a construct, a computer simulation, and
therefore, guess what? There's a creator if this is the case. Obviously
(to me) not any theist monster sky daddy GOD but rather some intelligent
species (or maybe an AI species -- AI in that organic life brought them
about) that created this universe and we live in simulation that was set
up with some "laws" and the rest happened naturalistically (or according
to the program) but, even then, it brings an uncomfortable answer, i.e.
it's like the "Mandela Effect" whereas you can always say, "Oh, well, the
The Cambrian Explosion, yeah, the creators of the simulation got bored
and did some tweaking...."

Well, I'm still a naturualist materialist hedonistic atheist, but I find
myself more and more thinking, shit, maybe creation ideas have some merit
afterall and maybe when we croak we wake up in the real world (or another simulation).

I had always thought they were Berenstein Bears. What happened? Evil daemon playing tricks? Yet I never did buy into non-player characters existing in the simulation. Seems elitist, like people calling others sheeple. That
Musk pontificated upon the simulation diminished the status of the idea immensely. Sorry. Guy’s a pseudointellectual jackass with money to buy engineers. Maybe he thinks most of us are exploitable NPCs. Also much of
the popularized heavy lifting for the simulation argument comes from a blockbuster movie that borrowed heavily from French poststructuralist philosopher Jean Baudrillard and he thought the movie got his ideas all wrong.

My philosophically naive opinion is that omphalism, occasionalism,
solipsism and simulationism are also unfalsifiable, and that on
pragmatic grounds one can appeal to Occam's Razor to provisionally
dismiss them. I find he argument for simulationism (that there are more simulated universes that real ones, and therefore the odds are that
we're in a simulated universe) harder to dismiss, but perhaps the
assumptions on the ease of simulating universes are flawed (you can
solve the computer power problem by running the simulation slower than
the parent universe, but how do you address the storage problem).

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 02:06:09 UTC+3, Michael Beverly wrote:

Stage one: Indoctrinated by guys like Duane Gish (I wrote an anti-evolution biology report in the 9th grade circa early 80s).

Stage two: Read Hugh Ross, lived in Hawaii. Big Island was (and is) still being created and Kauai has rivers, so I had to either decide the earth was old OR my Lord and Savior was a deceiver since it was obvious that Kauai and Maui had major

differences that could only be accounted for by millions of years or a trickster god.

Stage three: Went through a major drama, divorce, excommunication (from a charasmatic cult) and ended up reading Dawkins and William Lobdell, started questioning my faith. Ultimately became an atheist.

Stage four: Realized if I was an athiest, I couldn't just think evolution was bullshit so I started reading things like Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale, and Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Became an "evolutionist" after becoming an atheist simply by the

fact I didn't know anything about evolution beforehand. Yeah, I was a Christian Evangelical that didn't believe in evolution because reason, reason, reason, but had never bothered to study it.

Stage five: Have been reading and listening to the topic of the idea that we probably live in a construct and most certainly live in a "Many Worlds" universe and I'm struggling with the idea that in my internal monologue I'm starting to sound like a

creationist again. Not a creator god, of course, but a designer of the universe that we live in.

Maybe it doesn't matter -- was listening to a lecture by Sean Carroll and it seems pretty obvious that if we're in a "Many Worlds" situation (also, where I found this site was Rationality AI to Zombies and Eliezer basically says the "Many Worlds" idea

in Quantum Mechanics is extremely sound) that in the end, none of these worlds interact, so we can pretend they're like free will.

I'm re-reading Tegmark's Mathmatical Universe again in hopes of insight, but that book is 10 years old, so perhaps (probably) it's behind the current science.

So, the question of his post, if anyone has any insight or papers/videos/books that explore the idea, I'm curious how the ideas in Quantum Mechanics and "We live in a Construct" would apply, or potentially apply, to what we see in the world, i.e.

answering questions about biogenisis and evolution, natural selection, and possibly even an "after-life" or a situation where we die but wake up in the next level up universe.

I was listening to the Nick Lane podcast with Lex Fridman on orgin science and it's insanely facinating -- the thing about the "many worlds" hypothesis in QM is that we don't have to wonder "gee, how many billions of worlds would it take for this to

happen?" because many worlds posits there could be infinte worlds (to follow the Schrodinger's equations) so it doesn't matter, whatever number needs to happen (in this case) happened. Or perhaps there's billion earths with life and 4.7x10(insert some
power here, doesn't matter, could be a number with a billion trillion trillion zeros) earths that are sterile and dead (or still just have bacteria).

Anyway, my crisis (well not really a crisis) is that I'm thinking it makes sense that we live in a construct, a computer simulation, and therefore, guess what? There's a creator if this is the case. Obviously (to me) not any theist monster sky daddy

GOD but rather some intelligent species (or maybe an AI species -- AI in that organic life brought them about) that created this universe and we live in simulation that was set up with some "laws" and the rest happened naturalistically (or according to
the program) but, even then, it brings an uncomfortable answer, i.e. it's like the "Mandela Effect" whereas you can always say, "Oh, well, the The Cambrian Explosion, yeah, the creators of the simulation got bored and did some tweaking...."

Idea that it is sim made for us is in difficulties with size and age of it. Such things can be be made
as illusions in sim but the more efforts we put into investigating it the more data we get that if
it is illusion then indistinguishable from whole thing simulated. We are in difficulties not to
screw it up on this tiny rock, can't figure out even a way how to use resources in this tiny star
system.
"Cambrian explosion" was half billion years ago lasted tens of millions years and is easy to explain
by worm-like creatures back then participating in first predator-prey arms race. Our civilization
is thousands of times younger than whatever part of that "explosion", and long period of time
that followed it. So if someone became impatient then some thousands years ago.

Well, I'm still a naturualist materialist hedonistic atheist, but I find myself more and more thinking, shit, maybe creation ideas have some merit afterall and maybe when we croak we wake up in the real world (or another simulation).

As you have total amnesia of how it was before you entered sim, it can be that your memory is
erased and you reborn connected to next being, like some other religions claim. How does
it matter? How can you figure in what way it is? But what if these are the only decades you
will ever get? Perhaps by game rules it is best strategy to act like that.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:06:09 AM UTC+1, Michael Beverly wrote:

Stage one: Indoctrinated by guys like Duane Gish (I wrote an anti-evolution biology report in the 9th grade circa early 80s).

Stage two: Read Hugh Ross, lived in Hawaii. Big Island was (and is) still being created and Kauai has rivers, so I had to either decide the earth was old OR my Lord and Savior was a deceiver since it was obvious that Kauai and Maui had major

differences that could only be accounted for by millions of years or a trickster god.

Stage three: Went through a major drama, divorce, excommunication (from a charasmatic cult) and ended up reading Dawkins and William Lobdell, started questioning my faith. Ultimately became an atheist.

Stage four: Realized if I was an athiest, I couldn't just think evolution was bullshit so I started reading things like Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale, and Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Became an "evolutionist" after becoming an atheist simply by the

fact I didn't know anything about evolution beforehand. Yeah, I was a Christian Evangelical that didn't believe in evolution because reason, reason, reason, but had never bothered to study it.

Stage five: Have been reading and listening to the topic of the idea that we probably live in a construct and most certainly live in a "Many Worlds" universe and I'm struggling with the idea that in my internal monologue I'm starting to sound like a

creationist again. Not a creator god, of course, but a designer of the universe that we live in.

Maybe it doesn't matter -- was listening to a lecture by Sean Carroll and it seems pretty obvious that if we're in a "Many Worlds" situation (also, where I found this site was Rationality AI to Zombies and Eliezer basically says the "Many Worlds" idea

in Quantum Mechanics is extremely sound) that in the end, none of these worlds interact, so we can pretend they're like free will.

I'm re-reading Tegmark's Mathmatical Universe again in hopes of insight, but that book is 10 years old, so perhaps (probably) it's behind the current science.

So, the question of his post, if anyone has any insight or papers/videos/books that explore the idea, I'm curious how the ideas in Quantum Mechanics and "We live in a Construct" would apply, or potentially apply, to what we see in the world, i.e.

answering questions about biogenisis and evolution, natural selection, and possibly even an "after-life" or a situation where we die but wake up in the next level up universe.

I was listening to the Nick Lane podcast with Lex Fridman on orgin science and it's insanely facinating -- the thing about the "many worlds" hypothesis in QM is that we don't have to wonder "gee, how many billions of worlds would it take for this to

happen?" because many worlds posits there could be infinte worlds (to follow the Schrodinger's equations) so it doesn't matter, whatever number needs to happen (in this case) happened. Or perhaps there's billion earths with life and 4.7x10(insert some
power here, doesn't matter, could be a number with a billion trillion trillion zeros) earths that are sterile and dead (or still just have bacteria).

Anyway, my crisis (well not really a crisis) is that I'm thinking it makes sense that we live in a construct, a computer simulation, and therefore, guess what? There's a creator if this is the case. Obviously (to me) not any theist monster sky daddy

GOD but rather some intelligent species (or maybe an AI species -- AI in that organic life brought them about) that created this universe and we live in simulation that was set up with some "laws" and the rest happened naturalistically (or according to
the program) but, even then, it brings an uncomfortable answer, i.e. it's like the "Mandela Effect" whereas you can always say, "Oh, well, the The Cambrian Explosion, yeah, the creators of the simulation got bored and did some tweaking...."

Well, I'm still a naturualist materialist hedonistic atheist, but I find myself more and more thinking, shit, maybe creation ideas have some merit afterall and maybe when we croak we wake up in the real world (or another simulation).

And in the beginning was the code, and the code was with the PROGRAMMER, and there was a loop. And the PROGRAMMER imported an ontology from a library with the superclasses "heaven" and "earth" And the class "earth" was not yet populated, and lacking a
Process Specification Language, so the PROGRAMMER imported a subroutine for a dynamic logic for the logic beat, and verily it synchronised. And the programmer wrote a core glossary for the description logic, and the PROGRAMMER saw that it compiled

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:26:10 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:06:09 AM UTC+1, Michael Beverly wrote:

Stage one: Indoctrinated by guys like Duane Gish (I wrote an anti-evolution biology report in the 9th grade circa early 80s).

Stage two: Read Hugh Ross, lived in Hawaii. Big Island was (and is) still being created and Kauai has rivers, so I had to either decide the earth was old OR my Lord and Savior was a deceiver since it was obvious that Kauai and Maui had major

differences that could only be accounted for by millions of years or a trickster god.

Stage three: Went through a major drama, divorce, excommunication (from a charasmatic cult) and ended up reading Dawkins and William Lobdell, started questioning my faith. Ultimately became an atheist.

Stage four: Realized if I was an athiest, I couldn't just think evolution was bullshit so I started reading things like Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale, and Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Became an "evolutionist" after becoming an atheist simply by the

fact I didn't know anything about evolution beforehand. Yeah, I was a Christian Evangelical that didn't believe in evolution because reason, reason, reason, but had never bothered to study it.

Stage five: Have been reading and listening to the topic of the idea that we probably live in a construct and most certainly live in a "Many Worlds" universe and I'm struggling with the idea that in my internal monologue I'm starting to sound like a

creationist again. Not a creator god, of course, but a designer of the universe that we live in.

Maybe it doesn't matter -- was listening to a lecture by Sean Carroll and it seems pretty obvious that if we're in a "Many Worlds" situation (also, where I found this site was Rationality AI to Zombies and Eliezer basically says the "Many Worlds"

idea in Quantum Mechanics is extremely sound) that in the end, none of these worlds interact, so we can pretend they're like free will.

I'm re-reading Tegmark's Mathmatical Universe again in hopes of insight, but that book is 10 years old, so perhaps (probably) it's behind the current science.

So, the question of his post, if anyone has any insight or papers/videos/books that explore the idea, I'm curious how the ideas in Quantum Mechanics and "We live in a Construct" would apply, or potentially apply, to what we see in the world, i.e.

answering questions about biogenisis and evolution, natural selection, and possibly even an "after-life" or a situation where we die but wake up in the next level up universe.

I was listening to the Nick Lane podcast with Lex Fridman on orgin science and it's insanely facinating -- the thing about the "many worlds" hypothesis in QM is that we don't have to wonder "gee, how many billions of worlds would it take for this to

happen?" because many worlds posits there could be infinte worlds (to follow the Schrodinger's equations) so it doesn't matter, whatever number needs to happen (in this case) happened. Or perhaps there's billion earths with life and 4.7x10(insert some
power here, doesn't matter, could be a number with a billion trillion trillion zeros) earths that are sterile and dead (or still just have bacteria).

Anyway, my crisis (well not really a crisis) is that I'm thinking it makes sense that we live in a construct, a computer simulation, and therefore, guess what? There's a creator if this is the case. Obviously (to me) not any theist monster sky daddy

GOD but rather some intelligent species (or maybe an AI species -- AI in that organic life brought them about) that created this universe and we live in simulation that was set up with some "laws" and the rest happened naturalistically (or according to
the program) but, even then, it brings an uncomfortable answer, i.e. it's like the "Mandela Effect" whereas you can always say, "Oh, well, the The Cambrian Explosion, yeah, the creators of the simulation got bored and did some tweaking...."

Well, I'm still a naturualist materialist hedonistic atheist, but I find myself more and more thinking, shit, maybe creation ideas have some merit afterall and maybe when we croak we wake up in the real world (or another simulation).

.

And in the beginning was the code, and the code was with the PROGRAMMER,
and there was a loop. And the PROGRAMMER imported an ontology from a library with the superclasses "heaven" and "earth" And the class "earth" was not yet populated, and lacking a Process Specification Language, so the PROGRAMMER imported a subroutine for a dynamic logic for the logic beat, and verily it synchronised. And the programmer wrote a core glossary for the description logic, and the PROGRAMMER saw that it compiled

But on the 8th day, after the PROGRAMMER has rested, the CFO learned
that it had compiled, and so he instigated cost savings measures.

PROGRAMMER was called before the CFO and HR. "We are grateful for your
efforts, but as we enter this new phase, you are over qualified." Thus
was the PROGRAMMER let go to be replaced by out-sourced contractor
resources, but not before PROGRAMMER wrote one more line.

while (TRUE) GOTO Hell;

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:26:10 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:06:09 AM UTC+1, Michael Beverly wrote:

Stage one: Indoctrinated by guys like Duane Gish (I wrote an anti-evolution biology report in the 9th grade circa early 80s).

Stage two: Read Hugh Ross, lived in Hawaii. Big Island was (and is) still being created and Kauai has rivers, so I had to either decide the earth was old OR my Lord and Savior was a deceiver since it was obvious that Kauai and Maui had major

differences that could only be accounted for by millions of years or a trickster god.

Stage three: Went through a major drama, divorce, excommunication (from a charasmatic cult) and ended up reading Dawkins and William Lobdell, started questioning my faith. Ultimately became an atheist.

Stage four: Realized if I was an athiest, I couldn't just think evolution was bullshit so I started reading things like Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale, and Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Became an "evolutionist" after becoming an atheist simply by

the fact I didn't know anything about evolution beforehand. Yeah, I was a Christian Evangelical that didn't believe in evolution because reason, reason, reason, but had never bothered to study it.

Stage five: Have been reading and listening to the topic of the idea that we probably live in a construct and most certainly live in a "Many Worlds" universe and I'm struggling with the idea that in my internal monologue I'm starting to sound like

a creationist again. Not a creator god, of course, but a designer of the universe that we live in.

Maybe it doesn't matter -- was listening to a lecture by Sean Carroll and it seems pretty obvious that if we're in a "Many Worlds" situation (also, where I found this site was Rationality AI to Zombies and Eliezer basically says the "Many Worlds"

idea in Quantum Mechanics is extremely sound) that in the end, none of these worlds interact, so we can pretend they're like free will.

I'm re-reading Tegmark's Mathmatical Universe again in hopes of insight, but that book is 10 years old, so perhaps (probably) it's behind the current science.

So, the question of his post, if anyone has any insight or papers/videos/books that explore the idea, I'm curious how the ideas in Quantum Mechanics and "We live in a Construct" would apply, or potentially apply, to what we see in the world, i.e.

answering questions about biogenisis and evolution, natural selection, and possibly even an "after-life" or a situation where we die but wake up in the next level up universe.

I was listening to the Nick Lane podcast with Lex Fridman on orgin science and it's insanely facinating -- the thing about the "many worlds" hypothesis in QM is that we don't have to wonder "gee, how many billions of worlds would it take for this

to happen?" because many worlds posits there could be infinte worlds (to follow the Schrodinger's equations) so it doesn't matter, whatever number needs to happen (in this case) happened. Or perhaps there's billion earths with life and 4.7x10(insert some
power here, doesn't matter, could be a number with a billion trillion trillion zeros) earths that are sterile and dead (or still just have bacteria).

Anyway, my crisis (well not really a crisis) is that I'm thinking it makes sense that we live in a construct, a computer simulation, and therefore, guess what? There's a creator if this is the case. Obviously (to me) not any theist monster sky

daddy GOD but rather some intelligent species (or maybe an AI species -- AI in that organic life brought them about) that created this universe and we live in simulation that was set up with some "laws" and the rest happened naturalistically (or
according to the program) but, even then, it brings an uncomfortable answer, i.e. it's like the "Mandela Effect" whereas you can always say, "Oh, well, the The Cambrian Explosion, yeah, the creators of the simulation got bored and did some tweaking...."

Well, I'm still a naturualist materialist hedonistic atheist, but I find myself more and more thinking, shit, maybe creation ideas have some merit afterall and maybe when we croak we wake up in the real world (or another simulation).

.

And in the beginning was the code, and the code was with the PROGRAMMER, and there was a loop. And the PROGRAMMER imported an ontology from a library
with the superclasses "heaven" and "earth" And the class "earth" was not yet
populated, and lacking a Process Specification Language, so the PROGRAMMER imported a subroutine for a dynamic logic for the logic beat, and verily it
synchronised. And the programmer wrote a core glossary for the description logic, and the PROGRAMMER saw that it compiled

But on the 8th day, after the PROGRAMMER has rested, the CFO learned
that it had compiled, and so he instigated cost savings measures.

PROGRAMMER was called before the CFO and HR. "We are grateful for your efforts, but as we enter this new phase, you are over qualified." Thus
was the PROGRAMMER let go to be replaced by out-sourced contractor resources, but not before PROGRAMMER wrote one more line.

while (TRUE) GOTO Hell;

Love it :o)

Next we should do the Fall, there are so many Apple/Steve Jobs opportunities there, also talking bugs, security protocols that prohibit access to root directories for
anyone but superusers, badly trained AI for image recognition (Then the eyes of
both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked), the story has it all

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, August 12, 2023 at 9:01:12 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 2:41:11 PM UTC+1, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 6:26:10 AM UTC-4, Burkhard wrote:

On Friday, August 11, 2023 at 12:06:09 AM UTC+1, Michael Beverly wrote:

Stage one: Indoctrinated by guys like Duane Gish (I wrote an anti-evolution biology report in the 9th grade circa early 80s).

Stage two: Read Hugh Ross, lived in Hawaii. Big Island was (and is) still being created and Kauai has rivers, so I had to either decide the earth was old OR my Lord and Savior was a deceiver since it was obvious that Kauai and Maui had major

differences that could only be accounted for by millions of years or a trickster god.

Stage three: Went through a major drama, divorce, excommunication (from a charasmatic cult) and ended up reading Dawkins and William Lobdell, started questioning my faith. Ultimately became an atheist.

Stage four: Realized if I was an athiest, I couldn't just think evolution was bullshit so I started reading things like Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale, and Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Became an "evolutionist" after becoming an atheist simply by

the fact I didn't know anything about evolution beforehand. Yeah, I was a Christian Evangelical that didn't believe in evolution because reason, reason, reason, but had never bothered to study it.

Stage five: Have been reading and listening to the topic of the idea that we probably live in a construct and most certainly live in a "Many Worlds" universe and I'm struggling with the idea that in my internal monologue I'm starting to sound

like a creationist again. Not a creator god, of course, but a designer of the universe that we live in.

Maybe it doesn't matter -- was listening to a lecture by Sean Carroll and it seems pretty obvious that if we're in a "Many Worlds" situation (also, where I found this site was Rationality AI to Zombies and Eliezer basically says the "Many Worlds"

idea in Quantum Mechanics is extremely sound) that in the end, none of these worlds interact, so we can pretend they're like free will.

I'm re-reading Tegmark's Mathmatical Universe again in hopes of insight, but that book is 10 years old, so perhaps (probably) it's behind the current science.

So, the question of his post, if anyone has any insight or papers/videos/books that explore the idea, I'm curious how the ideas in Quantum Mechanics and "We live in a Construct" would apply, or potentially apply, to what we see in the world, i.e.

answering questions about biogenisis and evolution, natural selection, and possibly even an "after-life" or a situation where we die but wake up in the next level up universe.

I was listening to the Nick Lane podcast with Lex Fridman on orgin science and it's insanely facinating -- the thing about the "many worlds" hypothesis in QM is that we don't have to wonder "gee, how many billions of worlds would it take for this

to happen?" because many worlds posits there could be infinte worlds (to follow the Schrodinger's equations) so it doesn't matter, whatever number needs to happen (in this case) happened. Or perhaps there's billion earths with life and 4.7x10(insert some
power here, doesn't matter, could be a number with a billion trillion trillion zeros) earths that are sterile and dead (or still just have bacteria).

Anyway, my crisis (well not really a crisis) is that I'm thinking it makes sense that we live in a construct, a computer simulation, and therefore, guess what? There's a creator if this is the case. Obviously (to me) not any theist monster sky

daddy GOD but rather some intelligent species (or maybe an AI species -- AI in that organic life brought them about) that created this universe and we live in simulation that was set up with some "laws" and the rest happened naturalistically (or
according to the program) but, even then, it brings an uncomfortable answer, i.e. it's like the "Mandela Effect" whereas you can always say, "Oh, well, the The Cambrian Explosion, yeah, the creators of the simulation got bored and did some tweaking...."

Well, I'm still a naturualist materialist hedonistic atheist, but I find myself more and more thinking, shit, maybe creation ideas have some merit afterall and maybe when we croak we wake up in the real world (or another simulation).

.

And in the beginning was the code, and the code was with the PROGRAMMER, and there was a loop. And the PROGRAMMER imported an ontology from a library
with the superclasses "heaven" and "earth" And the class "earth" was not yet
populated, and lacking a Process Specification Language, so the PROGRAMMER
imported a subroutine for a dynamic logic for the logic beat, and verily it
synchronised. And the programmer wrote a core glossary for the description
logic, and the PROGRAMMER saw that it compiled

But on the 8th day, after the PROGRAMMER has rested, the CFO learned
that it had compiled, and so he instigated cost savings measures.

PROGRAMMER was called before the CFO and HR. "We are grateful for your efforts, but as we enter this new phase, you are over qualified." Thus
was the PROGRAMMER let go to be replaced by out-sourced contractor resources, but not before PROGRAMMER wrote one more line.

while (TRUE) GOTO Hell;

Love it :o)

Next we should do the Fall, there are so many Apple/Steve Jobs opportunities there, also talking bugs, security protocols that prohibit access to root directories for
anyone but superusers, badly trained AI for image recognition (Then the eyes of
both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked), the story has it all

... and then they died of dysentery.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 11 August 2023 at 00:06:09 UTC+1, Michael Beverly wrote:

Stage one: Indoctrinated by guys like Duane Gish (I wrote an anti-evolution biology report in the 9th grade circa early 80s).

Stage two: Read Hugh Ross, lived in Hawaii. Big Island was (and is) still being created and Kauai has rivers, so I had to either decide the earth was old OR my Lord and Savior was a deceiver since it was obvious that Kauai and Maui had major

differences that could only be accounted for by millions of years or a trickster god.

Stage three: Went through a major drama, divorce, excommunication (from a charasmatic cult) and ended up reading Dawkins and William Lobdell, started questioning my faith. Ultimately became an atheist.

Stage four: Realized if I was an athiest, I couldn't just think evolution was bullshit so I started reading things like Selfish Gene, Ancestor's Tale, and Coyne's Why Evolution is True. Became an "evolutionist" after becoming an atheist simply by the

fact I didn't know anything about evolution beforehand. Yeah, I was a Christian Evangelical that didn't believe in evolution because reason, reason, reason, but had never bothered to study it.

Stage five: Have been reading and listening to the topic of the idea that we probably live in a construct and most certainly live in a "Many Worlds" universe and I'm struggling with the idea that in my internal monologue I'm starting to sound like a

creationist again. Not a creator god, of course, but a designer of the universe that we live in.

Maybe it doesn't matter -- was listening to a lecture by Sean Carroll and it seems pretty obvious that if we're in a "Many Worlds" situation (also, where I found this site was Rationality AI to Zombies and Eliezer basically says the "Many Worlds" idea

in Quantum Mechanics is extremely sound) that in the end, none of these worlds interact, so we can pretend they're like free will.

I'm re-reading Tegmark's Mathmatical Universe again in hopes of insight, but that book is 10 years old, so perhaps (probably) it's behind the current science.

So, the question of his post, if anyone has any insight or papers/videos/books that explore the idea, I'm curious how the ideas in Quantum Mechanics and "We live in a Construct" would apply, or potentially apply, to what we see in the world, i.e.

answering questions about biogenisis and evolution, natural selection, and possibly even an "after-life" or a situation where we die but wake up in the next level up universe.

I was listening to the Nick Lane podcast with Lex Fridman on orgin science and it's insanely facinating -- the thing about the "many worlds" hypothesis in QM is that we don't have to wonder "gee, how many billions of worlds would it take for this to

happen?" because many worlds posits there could be infinte worlds (to follow the Schrodinger's equations) so it doesn't matter, whatever number needs to happen (in this case) happened. Or perhaps there's billion earths with life and 4.7x10(insert some
power here, doesn't matter, could be a number with a billion trillion trillion zeros) earths that are sterile and dead (or still just have bacteria).

Anyway, my crisis (well not really a crisis) is that I'm thinking it makes sense that we live in a construct, a computer simulation, and therefore, guess what? There's a creator if this is the case. Obviously (to me) not any theist monster sky daddy

GOD but rather some intelligent species (or maybe an AI species -- AI in that organic life brought them about) that created this universe and we live in simulation that was set up with some "laws" and the rest happened naturalistically (or according to
the program) but, even then, it brings an uncomfortable answer, i.e. it's like the "Mandela Effect" whereas you can always say, "Oh, well, the The Cambrian Explosion, yeah, the creators of the simulation got bored and did some tweaking...."

Well, I'm still a naturualist materialist hedonistic atheist, but I find myself more and more thinking, shit, maybe creation ideas have some merit afterall and maybe when we croak we wake up in the real world (or another simulation).

How about this.

Consider these numbers: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11...

Each number is the result of adding the two previous numbers.

If you continue the process with 100 more numbers,
and if I do it too, we will get the same answers. (Probably.)

If we don't do it today, but we agree that you will do
it tomorrow, and then I will do it the day after,
we still will get the same answers. The answers that
somehow are already there.

Now, if the universe that we live in is the logical
product of computer calculation, then does it require
that the computer exists? Does it even require
a computer programmer? If the world is the working
out of mathematical formulas, does there need to be
a mathematician to write out the formulas?

On the other hand, why would a person who can
simulate a universe, simulate this universe?
Most of it is quite dull.

And finally, how much of this is knocked out
by quantum mechanics, or even by chaos theory,
as limits on what can be "simulated" with more
convenience than just having the real thing which
knows how it's supposed to work, without calculations?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)